User:Legoktm/AFC

Background
From WP:WPAFC

On 5 December 2005, in response to the Seigenthaler incident, unregistered users were stopped from creating new pages on the English Wikipedia (read about it in the Signpost).

Consequently, the page Articles for creation was set up by and others, to allow unregistered users to submit articles for registered users to create on their behalf. The first page to be created was the redirect Fox Latin America requested by. The first article created was Horsea Island by.

Following huge backlogs on the page, and others  WikiProject Articles for creation on 2 June 2007.

Many problems have been identified with the current AfC review process, this RfC will try to address them and implement reform.

AfC today
Unregistered users, and users are instructed to make articles in their /sandboxes, others are sent to AFC via the Article Wizard. Recently, many of the submissions coming into AfC are promotional/spam pieces, COI articles, and non-notable topics.

Problems
There are quite a few problems that AfC faces today, including the following:
 * Excessive backlogs
 * Inconsistencies between reviewers
 * Inexperienced reviewers biting newcomers
 * Inconsistencies with how new page patrol is done
 * Lack of response from users when comments/clarification is needed
 * Questions asked/Help given in multiple places (Teahouse, AfC help desk, #wikipedia-en-help, Special:EmailUser, OTRS)
 * Copyright violations being missed (partial solution: User talk:Madman)
 * No "double check" system (ex: when CSD'ing two users check it, first the tagger, then the deleting admin)
 * Declined articles just sit there, rather than being deleted
 * Messages left on talk pages aren't helpful, nor informative
 * It is not clear when to apply the Verifiability decline.

-=Proposals=

Who can submit to AFC?

 * Only anonymous users may submit AFC submissions
 * Pros: Keeps backlogs down, keeps project in original scope


 * Support because...


 * Any user may submit AFC submissions
 * Pros: Anyone can have their article reviewed; generally increases Wikipedia quality as a majority of the current AfCs are created by newly registered users.


 * Suppport because...

Who can review AFC submissions?

 * Any user in good standing who understands our policies
 * Pros: No need for WP:CREEP, problems can be handled on a case-by-case basis


 * Support because...

Talk page messages

 * Messages left on users talk pages after a decline should not be generic, they should be directly addressed to the reviewer's concerns.
 * Ex: When an article is declined for being an advertisement, a message similar to Template:Spam-warn should be used.


 * Pros: This gives users a reason on why their article was declined, without them having to actually visit the submission.


 * Support because...

Verifiability decline
There are two reasons to decline for verifiability: 1) when notability is not verifiable and 2) when the content is not (sufficiently) verifiable. (1) refers specifically to the WP:GNG requirement that articles needs to be support by independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. If there are no reliable sources, or if there are not at least two reliable sources, or if the reliable sources are not independent, or if the reliable sources do not offer significant coverage then the article should be declined for failing WP:NRVE. (2) refers to problems with the references or amount of references in the article. If the article is completely unsourced, or if the sources are not reliable, or if a significant portion of the submission is unsourced then it should be declined for failing WP:V.

The decline template shows the user, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."
 * The template only covers (2)

The guide says, "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." and the guide also says the template is intended for "Insufficient reliable sources to verify the content of the submission."
 * The guide assumes the template covers (1)


 * There should be two options to decline for notability as explained above. The guide should be updated to reflect the message actually used in the template.
 * Support because...

Declined submissions
Currently there are no active policy for what to do with old submissions. Some are taken through the MfD process, some fall under the CSD rules but most submissions remain. Category:AFC submissions by status currently lists close to 80.000 declined submissions and 14.000 draft submissions. Although it doesn't cost us anything, is there any reason to keep these is nobody is working on them? Is a brand new editor likely to find (and work) on an old submission, or is it more likely that they'll start a new submission (which then risks rejection for being a duplicate submission)?
 * Proposal: Six months after the last edit, declined or draft submissions will be deleted (by a bot).


 * Support because...


 * Oppose because...