Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

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

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

2+ months

1,750 pending submissions to update

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Chart: Pending AfC submissions

Backlog chart daily Backlog chart weekly

List: Copyvios

Please see below the detected copyvios which have a 30%+ probability from Earwigs. Updated every 12 hours at midday and midnight UK time (and sometimes manually run by me). Each run a random 200 drafts are checked + the existing detected copyvios (to see if they have been fixed) EDIT: I have adjusted RichBot to remove a check from any article which has been declined/rejected for whatever reason, but was still in the existing copyvios list. If the draft is re-submitted, it will be rechecked

Copyvios In Drafts(Beware Of Mirrors!) - Do You Use This Table? Please Let My Operator Know :)

Draft	Copyvio Of	Percentage	Copyvios Report
Asian Bureau of Finance and Economic Research	Link	42	Copyvios
Construction Products Regulation 2024	Link	38	Copyvios
Shidinn	Link	38	Copyvios
Thilo Stadelmann	Link	80	Copyvios
Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010	Link	41	Copyvios
Digital Token Identifier	Link	94	Copyvios
Ollie Pearce	Link	61	Copyvios
Seldon Charles Forrester Farmer	Link	32	Copyvios
Brad R. Kunkle	Link	68	Copyvios
Albert Antwi-Boasiako	Link	45	Copyvios
2012 Dual Universal Suffrage (Hong Kong)	Link	45	Copyvios
Aaron Samuel Tamares	Link	32	Copyvios
Abdulahman Thaher	Link	34	Copyvios
Alain Labrique	Link	39	Copyvios
Alena Rudenka	Link	93	Copyvios
Alexander Tetelbaum	Link	43	Copyvios
Angela Potochnik	Link	44	Copyvios
Anita Bhatia	Link	35	Copyvios
Anthony Renard Reed	Link	34	Copyvios
Aram Mala Nuri	Link	36	Copyvios
Asprofin Bank Corporation	Link	31	Copyvios
Atlantic Council Distinguished Leadership Awards	Link	71	Copyvios
Avenue Mac-Mahon	Link	44	Copyvios
Bageshree Vaze	Link	89	Copyvios
Bill FitzGibbons	Link	31	Copyvios
Black Friday (soundtrack)	Link	32	Copyvios
Blue bloods in college ice hockey	Link	45	Copyvios
Caitlin McCarthy	Link	51	Copyvios
Cedric Hartman	Link	58	Copyvios
Charles Edmund Grissell	Link	31	Copyvios
Cheryl McNeil	Link	38	Copyvios
Clan Dunlop	Link	59	Copyvios
Climate change policy of the George W. Bush administration	Link	46	Copyvios
Corey Arceneaux	Link	40	Copyvios
Decentralized art	Link	41	Copyvios
Ellen Kooijman	Link	31	Copyvios
Empire State Bastard	Link	46	Copyvios
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program	Link	55	Copyvios
Francesca Martí	Link	74	Copyvios
Francisca Benítez	Link	40	Copyvios
Glossary of logistics terms	Link	96	Copyvios
Grace Shipping Company	Link	40	Copyvios
Gustav-Oskar Winter Klingele	Link	38	Copyvios
Hawpa	Link	32	Copyvios
Hełm HP-05	Link	43	Copyvios
Holy Week in Segovia	Link	65	Copyvios
International Association for Reconciliation Studies	Link	32	Copyvios
International Board of Standards (Colorado, USA)	Link	76	Copyvios
Jack Meng-Tat Chia	Link	76	Copyvios
James N. Kochenderfer	Link	38	Copyvios
Jamie Woodcock	Link	44	Copyvios
Jamil Azar	Link	53	Copyvios
Jan Haywood	Link	41	Copyvios
Jeffrey V. Lazarus	Link	36	Copyvios
Jeremias Fliedl	Link	62	Copyvios
Jill L. McNitt-Gray	Link	32	Copyvios
Johan Gaume	Link	66	Copyvios
Johanna Leblanc	Link	70	Copyvios
John Barr (American Poet)	Link	37	Copyvios
John James (businessman and philanthropist)	Link	79	Copyvios
Kalinganagar Massacre	Link	48	Copyvios
Kate Elswit	Link	57	Copyvios
Keshab K. Parhi	Link	54	Copyvios
Kevin Khoa Nguyen	Link	44	Copyvios
Lal Bahadur Khowal	Link	38	Copyvios
Loli Kim	Link	36	Copyvios
Lori Moore-Merrell	Link	48	Copyvios
Luka Brase	Link	54	Copyvios
Marc Tedeschi	Link	33	Copyvios
Marsha Perelman	Link	36	Copyvios
Maxim Lazarev	Link	51	Copyvios
Mental Health in Kosovo	Link	40	Copyvios
Menzo Havenga	Link	44	Copyvios
Michelle Rozo	Link	57	Copyvios
Montien Boonma	Link	88	Copyvios
Mr. Bellamy (song)	Link	40	Copyvios
Murillo de Aragão	Link	89	Copyvios
Murphy v. Ramsey	Link	45	Copyvios
Mário Eunides Junqueira Guimarães Júnior	Link	59	Copyvios
Nicholas Ashe Bateman	Link	52	Copyvios
Nikolay Karabinovych	Link	44	Copyvios
Noha M. El-Bassiouny	Link	33	Copyvios
Overshoot (book)	Link	61	Copyvios
Pavel Efimovich El'yasberg	Link	30	Copyvios
Perrett's Park, Bristol	Link	32	Copyvios
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in France	Link	50	Copyvios
Pete Shuttleworth	Link	38	Copyvios
Phulwarisharif PFI Case (2022)	Link	34	Copyvios
Prince Jose	Link	31	Copyvios
Professor Andrew Jones	Link	34	Copyvios
Red Brick Road (unproduced TV series)	Link	58	Copyvios
Rick Beerhorst	Link	66	Copyvios
Roy Ames	Link	51	Copyvios
Scott Foster (engineer)	Link	55	Copyvios
Scott Howe	Link	33	Copyvios
Serena J. Israel	Link	31	Copyvios
The Anh Phan	Link	42	Copyvios
The Commons (newspaper)	Link	52	Copyvios
The Flowering of the Strange Orchid	Link	38	Copyvios
The Maternity Protection, Employment Equality and Preservation of Certain Records Act 2024	Link	38	Copyvios
The Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen Global Platform	Link	41	Copyvios
Thematic focus of Robert Browning poetic work	Link	48	Copyvios
Thomas Dixon, 1st Baron of Symondstone	Link	70	Copyvios
Tribeca Films	Link	36	Copyvios
Trina D. Spencer	Link	40	Copyvios
Tsitsi Masiyiwa	Link	44	Copyvios
Twelve revivers of Caliphate	Link	43	Copyvios
Ulrich Krause	Link	56	Copyvios
Valentin Peytchinov	Link	43	Copyvios
Vijay Vasudev Pillay	Link	63	Copyvios
VuWall	Link	51	Copyvios
Wells Hively	Link	42	Copyvios
William Andrew Fletcher	Link	34	Copyvios
Workshop on Matrices and Operators	Link	55	Copyvios
Yan Chai Hospital Wong Wha San Secondary School	Link	37	Copyvios
Yerach Doytsher	Link	86	Copyvios
Zeal Jones	Link	43	Copyvios
Zlatko Paković	Link	42	Copyvios
Znanie (society)	Link	31	Copyvios
“Rise Up” (Drama Single), 2023	Link	42	Copyvios

Mistaken Draftify

I mistakenly draftified an article that had already been draftified once before. It is Draft:Shaka Ilembe. Since it had already been moved from article space to draft space and back to article space, I should have nominated it for deletion and specified draftification as the preferred action. I am assuming that I should leave it in draft space, and it will probably be moved back into article space yet again? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe there are no issues in leaving it there. And as you mentioned, I don't quite think that nominating an article for deletion and then suggesting draftification is a good idea. If an article has been draftified once, it shouldn't stop anyone from draftifying it again if it's appropriate. This is different from PROD, where second time it must go to AFD. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276 Online events: New: Women in Red's 8th anniversary | Alphabet run A & B | Sports Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Look out for contributors interested in writing about women and invite them to join Women in Red Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Replacing a redirect

Slay Anything, in article namespace, is a TV series episode, currently a redirect to the series' season. Draft:Slay Anything is a draft about the episode, and it seems fine. But I can't approve it because the name is taken by the redirect. I tagged the redirect with {{Db-afc-move|Draft:Slay Anything}} to make way for the article, but it was declined because "Removing CSD tag, this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, much less approved". So how do I deal with it? Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the right answer is, but I would mark the pending draft as under review (as it suggests in the speedy tag), and maybe also post a comment in it saying 'ready to accept, awaiting title clearance' (or words to that effect) so the admin knows you're on the case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, ideally the draft should have been marked as under review, but otherwise there was nothing done "wrong" here on the part of Cambalachero. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, and I wasn't suggesting there was (anything wrong). Just saying that's what one might do, to help avoid such misunderstandings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Liz as said admin Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately every other admin does appear to understand this process - if a reviewer puts this tag on they have clearly reviewed it - so saying "this draft hasn't been reviewed yet, much less approved" is just assuming bad faith. In fact I had not had an issue with just using a standard G6 with any other admin. {{Db-afc-move}} was created just to get around this issue, yet still the issue persists. Oh and pinging Liz probably won't help as I believe she turned notifications off. KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I left Liz a note. S0091 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had then just realised I had got distracted and not published :/ KylieTastic (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I just check to make the draft is actually ready for main space before doing a redirect deletion and page move. There have been times when an editor who isn't an AFC reviewer asks for a main space page deletion so their draft can be moved and it often has not only not been reviewed by an AFC reviewer, it hasn't been approved! I actually check to see that the editor who posts the CSD tag is an AFC reviewer because it's not always the case that they are.

I guess I'm unusual among admins in that I want the draft to be main space ready before I move it into the main space of the project. Otherwise, I have no idea when the AFC reviewer will be back on the project to remove AFC tags and comments from AFC reviewers and clean up the page. This is usually not a problem as most AFC reviewers have drafts prepared for main space and our readers. But maybe in the future, I'll just skip these tagged redirects and leave them for someone else to deal with. My guess is that they will sit around for hours until someone gets to them but maybe that would cause less confusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

and it often has not only not been reviewed by an AFC reviewer, it hasn't been approved! - as has been noted before, a reviewer cannot accept a draft in any way until the mainspace redirect has been deleted by an admin. If the user is not an AfC reviewer, that is a different matter, and I'm personally happy with said CSDs being declined in that instance. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to skip these entirely. I would rather have a "speedy" deletion notice sit around for a few hours over having to do <waves hand at thread> this whole thing every time a valid deletion request is declined. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually check to see that the editor who posts the CSD tag is an AFC reviewer a reviewer is - so what happened this time? Cambalachero is listed at WP:AFC/P and also they are Autopatrolled have Pending changes reviewers, they also have 21 GAs and 2 FAs so it's difficult to see how the request could not have been taken as being from a trusted reviewer.

The real issue is I want the draft to be main space ready before I move it into the main space of the project - {{Db-afc-move}} is asking for the admin to Please delete this page and allow the draft reviewer to move the draft. As has been explained before this is so the AFCH tool we use can do everything else in one go: remove the junk AfC tags etc, check the short description, add/check projects and categories, add AfC project template to the articles talk page, leave an approved message for the submitter, log at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent (which other I know use as a place to check on new approvals), log to the reviewers "AfC log" is set. By wanting to move yourself you are skipping all these processes. Maybe if you did a few reviews (at least one accept and one decline) to see how AFCH works for yourself?

As the AFHC tool does all these things I really find it hard to believe most AFC reviewers have drafts prepared for main space, if you are seeing that I would assume it was non AfC reviewers. Also if someone does this and removed the AfC tags etc and the admin just deletes the redirect as the request says then we have a big issue if the requester forgets as it has been removed for the pending submission and may not be picked up for 6 months.

Maybe we need to change the {{Db-afc-move}} text to: Please ONLY delete this page and LEAVE the draft reviewer to move the draft? KylieTastic (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

KylieTastic - just edited it now with a little more emphasis, but by all means if you think it needs to be stronger as you say, feel free to be bold. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI: this issue has been discussed before several times, such as AfC: Some newbie questions, AfC: A plea to Draft reviewers and AN: db-move and drafts. KylieTastic (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth adding a note about this to Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion, given that this has happened to me a few times and it can be a continual problem? It may also be worth adding that non-AfC admins shouldn't accept the draft if they aren't going to do the clean-up after...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is {{Db-afc-move}} also puts it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which I believe is the one Liz probably picks them up from. KylieTastic (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I don't see an issue with plonking one there as well/instead...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The deletion tag was written specifically because of Liz, and the fact that she still ignores it says something... I don't think extra notes in other places are going to do anything. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding this discussion I had with Liz on her talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I have deleted the redirect, so please feel free to accept the draft as you have indicated it is appropriate to do so. I will save my words to Liz for if/when she turns up to the conversation. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing instructions update

 Done. If this issue shows up so frequently, perhaps we should have something about it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Known issues Cambalachero (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that we have no mention of {{db-afc-move}} on the reviewing instructions; not sure if it needs to go in that section specifically but it should probably be somewhere. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be an "If the title already exists" sub-section there to cover disambiguation and handling redirects. Thoughts? S0091 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I hesitate to suggest a "step 0" to the box, but I think putting it under § Step 4: Accepting a submission is probably the best place; renumbering would obviously be automatic so "Click the Accept button" would be Step 2... but yes, a quick "what to do if you can't accept straight away" is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be bold and do it, but I think I [should probably] 'draft' it here first for a check first:

"If the page title already exists as a redirect, you should add {{db-afc-move}} to the mainspace redirect (if it already exists as an article, see Step 1 and what to do if it already exists). After it has been deleted by an administrator, you can then accept the submission. In the event that it is not deleted, please notify reviewers on the Articles for Creation talk page."

Is that helpful? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I keep bouncing about on this, but if there is a redirect in the way AFCH will let the reviewer know, so I feel like maybe a subsection under "Select an appropriate name"? In other words, choose the right name, then "if the name you have selected already exists, check it is a redirect. If it is..." followed by (maybe a shorter version of) your text. This would be a bullet point or two under that first bullet point. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Been bold and edited the wording per your recommendations. I've changed the section heading to be a bit more generic ("Known issues" sounds like bugs, rather than potential problems for the reviewer(s), in my opinion). If there is a better way of showing it, then I don't mind anyone moving it around. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, exactly what I was hoping for. Primefac (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Mattdaviesfsic. Will take a look tomorrow because there is a least one situation that is a valid decline (WP:histmerge comes to mind). Also, is it ok if I refer to you as Matt? S0091 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely!

I'll be back tomorrow as well, so if any other editors want to drop their thoughts here as well, they're welcome to. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a couple tweaks so please take look. S0091 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As you'll see in my edit summary, I don't believe all users do mark it as under review (I don't myself, for instance), so I've added a clause that reflects the ability (but not the mandate) to do so. Hope that's okay.

And thanks all for a lovely discussion about this, great civility all round! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I added that because @Primefac requested we do so (see WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 52#Speaking of db-afc-move). However, there was no actual discussion. Personally it is not something I normally do either but will in these cases. I also add a comment stating I am waiting for a redirect to be deleted but that's just me. :) So is marking it under review be something folks should do or be optional? S0091 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would suggest that it be left optional because admins are effectively duty-bound to just delete it (as per much emphasis on the template, and now on the Cat page), although some reviewers may wish to mark it as such regardless (for those few "super-picky" admins).

However, I'm not overly bothered about it (and, tbh, I doubt many are so long as the redirect is just deleted), so am not going to shout about it. Hope that helps, and thanks again Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by it either but will SHOUT anyway lol. :) Just joking. I agree with you. Also, technically an editor is not required to be a reviewer to move a pending draft to main space/request Db-6. S0091 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it optional. I also suggest that we not mention "under review" in the {{Db-afc-move}} template, to avoid admin confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks for removing that yesterday morning. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If the instructions are clear enough, the "In the event that it is not deleted..." would not be needed. But if we change the wording of a speedy deletion template, shouldn't we notify this somewhere? Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Cambalachero - I've today added some more emphasis to the template which should clear this up, although we probably won't need to post a mass message about it, as the problems are only with a small number of admins (where they will hopefully see the new emphasis!). Hope that's okay. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested at proposal to drop 'your first article' link from welcome templates

The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to Help:Your first article from welcome templates has been opened; your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Probationary member for one year

Hi, I have been a probationary member for AfC reviewing for over a year now. I was wondering if I could get reviewed and put as a regular active reviewer, rather than probationary. I'm putting this on the main talk page rather than the participant requests page because I am not requesting access to the actual AFCH script. Thanks, Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Primefac oversees this aspect of AfC, so pinging them. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I watch this page and don't necessarily need pings, but not the end of the world

You have made less than 1 review per month pretty much since you got the perm, and still only have 42 reviews even with the stuff you've done in June, so there hasn't really been enough to go on to merit a full review and a "bump" to non-probationary status. That being said, it's not a "status" thing and more of a "we can remove you from the list for any reason" thing, because historically it was notoriously difficult to remove sub-standard reviewers. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the info :) Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Prevent non-AfC reviewer from declining or accepting AfC submission. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Can a draft be blocked from being resubmitted?

Just curious to know what sanctions are available for drafts that are rapidly resubmitted without improvement. Draft:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 was returned to draft space following an AfD, there still aren't any independent reliable sources about the event being added, but as soon as the draft is declined it is immediately resubmitted. Judging by previous similar articles, this event only attracted any wider notice in the couple of weeks before the event (which is in December 2023). Sionk (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It could be deleted and salted, but it would just get recreated with a slightly different title(likely one letter difference). It could be page protected, but the same problem would arise. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Usually if you don't want to just leave it in the queue, I'd say rejecting it and telling the submitters to stop is the first thing to try after repeated declines. Obviously none of the gradually escalating measures can stop someone truly determined but we don't really have to, a few more filtered out after each step is enough. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As it is likely to be pass notability later in the year the best would just be to leave it in the !queue. Leave it till it reaches the end in four months and it may be notable. KylieTastic (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to take the long approach, I'd say mark it as under review and then wait until it gets closer to time. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with Draft:Stellina (TV series), but this one is not a future event that will happen and get more attention and editors in the future. It's an animated series, the only info is the trivial one (plot, characters, episodes, credits, etc), and the only spurces are IMDB-like databases, pages with user-made content, and youtube clips from the series. There have been 6 rejections for lack of notability, 2 of them today, and each time the user simply resubmits with minimal and inconsequential changes (such as the plot description) or even with no changes at all. Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: There's a difference between declining a draft and rejecting one. The latter does not provide a button to resubmit; the former does. Looks like things have slowed down there, but if they try resubmitting without changing anything significant again, I'd reject it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting Help:Your first article

Spurred by the CENT-listed conversation linked a few section up, a few of us have been working on a rewrite at User:Houseblaster/YFA draft. It's not quite ready yet, but as it's geared towards AfC acceptance, I thought the kind volunteers here may have some insights into how it should look at release. Folly Mox (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Posting this here because this proposal involves draftifying 1000 articles to start (and probably more later), and changing G13 from 6 months to 5 years for these drafts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:18650 battery

I was in the process of accepting this but there was a redirect in the way and I requested and I assume an admin deleted it but by then I was distracted. Before I could accept, it looks like jmcgnh came through and cleared my review in progress (without contacting me), declined the draft and suggested the content could be merged into List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery or Lithium-ion battery (the former is where 18650 battery previously and currently redirects).

This type of battery is widely used in applications ranging from laptops to electric cars. The subject meets WP:GNG and there's not a WP:NOT issue so I don't see policy reason why it should not have its own article. I appreciate that editors who work on List of battery sizes#Cylindrical lithium-ion rechargeable battery and Lithium-ion battery may not think that a separate article is the best way to cover a topic. I don't think that's a question we need to get in to at AfC. Let's not make our accept criteria any more complicated than it needs to be. If it turns out separate article is unwanted by consensus, a WP:MERGE can always be done after the draft is accepted.

Anyone else have thoughts? Is there an administrator willing to delete the 18650 battery redirect so this draft can be accepted? ~Kvng (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

While yes, there is an article AAA Battery, it's backed up by a much clearer notability story than the draft here in question. Ref 2 and ref 3 are not independent. Ref 1 is probably okay, but is mainly there to support the statement that the size of the cell sometimes varies by a couple of millimeters in length because of a protection circuit, which the draft dilutes to a generic These dimensions can vary by a millimeter or more.

I think Kvng does admirable work. But if I had come across this article after acceptance, I'd have sent it back to draft. Finding it in the state of 'under review' and, when I first looked, still waiting for the removal of the redirect, I elected to override the outdated 'under review' status (more than 24 hours) and decline the draft. I expected to decline the speedy on the redirect, but in that short interval, the redirect speedy deletion request was granted, so I recreated the redirect.

Was I too hasty? I only came to look at this draft because a user had come to the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help to ask about the status of the review. They left the channel before anyone could respond, but I thought I'd look into it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nepalese politicians - block avoidance?

I noticed a lot of Nepalese politicians with IPs in the 182.50.66.* range creating many with several accepts. However many of these were previously deleted as created by a sock Anup Rajbanshi and there puppets. They appear to be notable as real politicians that pass WP:NPOL but look highly likely to have created by a sock. If they were created by an account I would report as another sock, but not sure what to do and I see we have a few more already in the !queue. KylieTastic (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's not helpful to file an SPI about an IP. I also noted the sock is globally locked. I suggest contacting a CU directly, maybe one of the more recent CUs that handled the SPI. Also note Liz mentioned in the last SPI there was an IP involved but since the pages were deleted, those like us without the goggles can't see the history to determine if the IP was in the same range as this one. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Clerk here. Filing an SPI about an IP is fine. It's definitely a better idea than contacting a CU, as CUs can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. Spicy (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the expert advice Spicy! I swore I read somewhere from a CU that it was not worth a formal SPI because either way they can't publicly connect IPs but clearly I misremembered or it was a unique situation. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Spicy, I didn't think anything could be done at SPI as I thought I had seen similar reports rejected - but I bow to your superior knowledge in this area and have filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi for the 11 IPs involved so far. Currently 8 more in the !queue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello KylieTastic, Hope you're doing well. I don't want to bother you, Apart from this I just want to know that how to overcome from this issues? Does this issue affects the drafted articles of Nepalese politician which was accepted by me and by other reviewers? Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Fade258, if the administrators decide that this is a block evasion they would then probably delete all the accepted drafts and awaiting drafts. Unless you happened to come across multiple of these or happened to dig into the old deletion reasons these all looked like easy accepts under WP:NPOL so not surprising many were accepted. I just happened to notice and decided to do a bit of digging. As you can see from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi/Archive they are a prolific sock and I had a vague memory of running into them before. I would just avoid any more of these submissions until the SPI case has been closed. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't like deleting these, even when they fall under WP:G5. If they're on notable subjects and they're properly sourced, why should we delete a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article? It's just a net negative to the project as a whole, in my opinion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it feels wrong to delete notable articles, however on the flip side if we don't then we are saying people can get away with socking and block avoidance. It would have been best if some other editors had created some of these between the socking. KylieTastic (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

KylieTastic, Inreference to your last comment above, Can I create those drafted articles created by sockppupet, directly into a mainspace? Fade258 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Fade258, you could obviously create new ones directly, but if you mean direct copies I would thunk that was problematic as that would technically count as Copying within Wikipedia so would need attribution which would give credit to the sock again. In the end it will be down to the admins, so probably wait to see what any of the mob cabal think. KylieTastic (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

KylieTastic, Sure, I will wait until that spi is closed, which you filled. Fade258 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for Review of Rejection

I reviewed a draft on a title that had previously had an article, but the article was then merged into a parent article as closed in an AFD. The draft appears to be the same as the merged-deleted version of the article. I Rejected the draft as Not Notable. Was this a correct or reasonable action? I don't normally Reject a draft on the first submission, but it would have been subject to G4 if it were moved into mainspace. By the way, it is Draft:Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow). Was Rejection a reasonable way to deal with what appears to be a submission that will not survive AFD (because it didn't survive AFD)? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Without seeing the original it's hard to judge, but as it was created in mostly one large edit then no new sources added, I would likely the same. Personally I would have still just declined on first submit but the important thing is you left a full comment to explain. As they appear to have made no attempt to improve there would be a high chance they would have just resubmitted again and got a reject, so the end is probably the same. If they have any new sources they can bring up in another forum WP:DRV, WP:TEA, etc. KylieTastic (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • User:KylieTastic - The original is in the history of the redirect, Gideon (Legends of Tomorrow). It has the same sources, and the biography appears to be the same. I usually leave long comments because I have pre-recorded my comments in the templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ah yes! In that case Robert I think submitting a no improvement copy and so soon after the AfD means a reject is a proportionate response. As the creator of the original AfDed version they were aware so should not be surprised. So good call. KylieTastic (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about Draft:Example

I brought up an unrelated concern about this page at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft:Example and G13, and that discussion led to me taking a closer look at the page as a whole, and... well, I don't think it's a good example of what a draft should look like.

The things I immediately pointed out over there was the lack of sections (the only heading it currently has is for References), despite being rather long, and the lack of references (just a single reference after the first sentence). I feel like this gives a bad precedent for any new editor who stumbles upon the page – in general, drafts should have sections, and every paragraph should ideally have a source.

There's also no image, which strikes me as weird, because there's an image on the similar User:Example; having a (free) image is also useful for your draft.

I also note there's no AFC banner, which feels like it should be included, given the leading text of "This is an example draft created via the Articles for creation process.". We should display how to submit your article to AFC here if this is an example draft for the AFC process (though to prevent accidental submissions, maybe just make it so clicking the "submit your draft for review" button does nothing?).

Does this look problematic to anyone else? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• I can't see what purpose it serves now. It was created by Steven (WMF) (no longer active) in 2013 "to link to this from a blog post". Looking at the history I can't see the value. Should we just delete? KylieTastic (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Dispute resolution over outdated/pov start-class article Juan Branco

Hello, I have been trying to translate the French B-class rated article fr:Juan Branco towards the English start-class article Juan Branco, which has wp:undue problems and is outdated anyway. However, I am encountering significant pushback from contributors who are either SPAs or have never added content to the article, neither of which rely on sources to judge what's relevant, but only on their wp:pov. Feel free to come help resolve the dispute and improve the article (which imo is currently a disaster compared to French version). Imagritte (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)