Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Decline comments workshop

This is a workshop for hashing out/deciding which, if any, of the decline reasons used at AFC should be kept, modified, or removed. In order to keep some semblance of order, here is the format of this page:
 * Vote "support" or "oppose" on as many decline reasons as you would like. Please only vote support if you think that the message should not be changed at all.
 * If voting "oppose", please give suggestions as to how you think the comment should be changed.
 * When 10+ users have voted on a decline reason:
 * If it receives more than 75% support it will be kept as-is.
 * If it receives less than 75% support a proposal will be put forth based on the given suggestions. A subsection will be made and voting will start over with the same format as above.
 * If after two weeks a particular comment has received less than 10 !votes the percentages will be calculated using the existing numbers.

Note this is only for hashing out new decline comments. Changes to the "declined" template itself is a conversation to be held elsewhere (likely WT:AFC).

Discussion About the Discussion
I don't think that this method of discussing the templates is likely to be helpful. I think that many of the reasons could use minor improvements. I also think that the first issue to be addressed is not the details of the decline reasons, but the text of the Declined template, which, as it is, is too saccharine and encouraging. I would prefer to focus on the general wording before getting into the details of the reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 Robert said it better than I could. We need to look at the whole template the user sees. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was saying a few months ago that I would like the option of specifying two or more reasons for a decline. I still think that would be appropriate, such as a notability reason and a tone reason.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the ability to decline for two reasons is being beta tested. Perhaps we need to add a new section to this workshop to discuss the surrounding decline context text and links. ~Kvng (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , you are more than welcome to start a discussion about the decline template itself. This page is a workshop, not an RFC, and there is no deadline or obligation to comment. As I said above, I think we should discuss the decline template, but that's a one-2nd-level-header sort of discussion (i.e. it doesn't need it's own subpage). In other words, both template and comments need to be updated, but every time I asked what people wanted to change I got no reply so I figured I'd get something started.
 * As for the "two-declines" option, as mentioned it is being sandboxed for AFCH currently and the template can accept two decline notices at the moment (the second just needs to be manually added). Primefac (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac - Okay. Is the two-decline version functioning for ordinary AFC users, or only experimentally?  How do I use or test it?  Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a change to the template itself. It's not live on AFCH at the moment (it's still in beta), but can easily be edited after AFCH adds the first decline notice. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac - Okay. I will comment on the templates that we have.  I think that some of the responses may give us more direction as to where to go from here.  I will note that the comments include a mixture of reasoned critiques and comments that I consider to misunderstand the nature of new editors.  I will explain.  New editors, whether at AFC, at NPP, or anywhere else in Wikipedia, fall into three classes.  The first is those who are here to contribute to the encyclopedia.  The second is those who are here for self-serving reasons.  The third is those who are completely clueless.  There is some overlap.  However, one of the major disconnects that I see is that some experienced editors think that most new editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and that if they submit crud, it is because they need more handholding to learn to be good editors.  Other experienced editors have a more cynical or more practical view, that not all new editors will develop with handholding, and crud just needs to go to a bit bucket.  I don't see the second and third groups of new editors as benefiting from handholding.  Anyway, thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. Some users can't understand what Robert lays out. Especially some of the outreach people who see their new volunteer editors, have zero experience at NPR/AFC, and just can't visualize that the VAST majority of new accounts are here for self serving purposes because that is not the workd they live in. I hesitate to even call these self serving accounts new editors as they are often quite experienced, just using a new throw away account.


 * We need two groups of templates - a go and a no go:
 * a) your submission ir unsuitable because... oh and please tag it for deletion to save us the effort. Don't encourage them to fix and resubmit.
 * b) your submission has some issues (shortage of refs, tone, etc) that can be improved. If the issues are not CSD worthy (copyvio or something else major) we should just give them the feedback and mainspace the page. The GF new user will benefit from working with other editors and hopefully will continue on other mainspace pages.


 * Notability is the biggest issue amd we can all judge that on most drafts quickly. Some pages are clearly notable on their face. Some pages are clearly not notable on their face. The edge cases we should search and decide. If it's borderline, accept and let NPR deal with it. The submit-decline-repeat can be significantly reduced if we tell the hopeless firmly NO and semd the likely good pages into mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , I object to this assumption you have that an individual reviewer will be able to know, by looking at a potentially unfinished draft, whether the submission will ever be acceptable. One of the criticisms of AfC is that a single reviewer can block potentially useful material and with it, useful new editors. We need more checks and balances, not less. Giving a reviewer an option to black-hole a submission is counter to the reform we are trying to make here at AfC. No one outside the project is asking us to dispense with bad submissions more efficiently. They're asking us to accept more of the promising submissions we receive and, to do this more quickly and to not WP:BITE while we're doing it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Surely we can all identify hopeless. It is no different than NPR where individual reviewers PROD, redirect, CSD, AFD. There has long been the idea of merging the two processes. To make the process more efficient I propose quickly disposing of junk and quickly promoting the promising/notable (even if not perfect) We need less pages stuck in purgatory where the submitters either give up on the good or repeatedly resubmit the bad. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No, like I said, I object and you telling me I can't is not a productive response. If you want AfC to work like NPR, you should join the call to close AfC. That's a much more efficient and sensible reform proposal than to take us through the contortions required to make AfC more like NPR. ~Kvng (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing instructions
This process is incomplete if we are not also simultaneously looking at the reviewing instructions for each of the decline reasons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * I'm surprised you're not getting more responses here. I'll try to knock off one or two a day until I've commented on all of them.  For this one, the message says what needs to be said and my only suggestion is with respect to formatting.  I suspect that many submitters don't actually click through to the blue-linked fine print.  This problem might be addressed by unlinking the words and then adding the usual blue-linked shortcut.  Using the second sentence as an example -- Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources (WP:RS), not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.  Yes, it's a minor change, but it might encourage people to actually read the guidance.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - I think that the argument given by User:Kvng is a genuinely terrible argument (although every constructive editor is entitled to a few terrible arguments). I agree that achieving NPOV is not feasible for new authors with pet subjects, but that is all the more reason why their submissions need to be killed, not an argument to send spam to mainspace for improvement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * support what Robert McClenon said. Mainspace is not a dumping ground for bad drafts!  Rather, draftspace is the place to get things ready for mainspace.  Please don't move promotional articles to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I think this decline reason should be removed as an option. Most of it is talking about sourcing and notability anyway for which we have a different decline reason. Achieving NPOV is not feasible for new authors working on pet subjects. In many cases, the only way this is going to get improved through collaboration in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At minimum, it needs a "tag for speedy deletion" option. MER-C 15:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * build in a CSD option. I've been going through the Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_an_advertisement from the last 6 months and tagging them G11. There are still 1600+ undeleted. Nearly all are G11 eligible and finding a page to accept already tagged adv is almost impossible. We are letting the spam text and links live for 6 months in draft, which is still good link juice for the spammers. We should draw a distinction between "NPOV" which can be fixed and "Adv" which should be CSD'd. Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Build in a CSD option instead. If it is bad enough to decline as an advert then it should be bad enough to delete as an advert. If it isn't that bad (minor issues) then it can be fixed up with a couple quick fixes that can be suggested to the user in a comment or it can be sent to main space with an NPOV tag. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I ran a small test of a couple hundred pages where I CSD'd every page declined as an Adv from several random letters of the alphabet. I got a few declines (normally I get almost no CSD declines) and even was able to mainspace a handful I felt were actually notable and not spammy after an Admin declined to accept the CSD. Turns out AfC version of "Advertising" is somewhat stricter than G11 standards. A take a way is we need to be more careful in what we decline at AfC as Advertising. On the flip side, Admins agreed that almost all the pages we tagged as adverts were CSD G11 acceptable. So the other take a way is we need to be more aggressive at CSDing the actual advertising. If we remove the pages we quickly we remove the opportunity to resubmit and that helps reduce the backlog. It takes no more time to CSD G11 now as to G13 later. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * if it is not bad enough to CSD G11, decline on NPOV or just remove or replace the offending words. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * I didn't know we had this. But it says what needs to be said and my only suggestion is the same one about formatting that I described above under "adv" (except for the small font links to the referencing guidelines  -- those seem fine as is).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like reviewers to do a search for sources first, and then suggest whether the topic is notable or not, but that's another issue that needs consensus to change. Probably worth having as a subject specific link is useful. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Support, but this should have two flavors, where improvement may be worth while, and where it is clear that there is no hope. I commonly use this one on the usual autobiographical social media profile.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would require a WP:BEFORE search, which isn't currently part of the AfC review guide. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We need this for plausibly notable bios. We need a nnbio for evidently non-notable bios. Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of declined blank submissions. Hidden text is very very rare. Simplfy to address the more likely issue:

We're sorry, but we cannot publish blank submissions or pages with no context. To suggest a topic go to Requested articles. If you submitted this in error or as a test please add G7 to the page to have it removed." Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle with 's proposal to simplify. I would propose that the message simply stop at the end of the second sentence. Further instructions on seeking help and deletion are already present in the template frame surrounding this message. ~Kvng (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On several of the decline reasons I'd like to encourage the user to evaluate and seek deletion themselves. Better than getting a notice its being deleted and a suble hint its going to be deleted soon. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about G13 notices. Those are not as WP:BITEy as what you're proposing here and therefore a superior way to handle this IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some go G13 but I try and clear them G2 sooner. That closes off REFUND suggestion for blank pages. A G2 is not BITEY it just clears the title for recreation properly. I'd prefer the blank submission be tagged G2 automatically with the decline. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with the wording is that assumes that the submitter provided a valid title but no text. That is much less common than just submitting with no title and no text.  Because the idea that this is a Requested Article is so far off the mark, I treat these as test edits.  As written, the decline rationale is just weird.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have seen hidden text. I would drop the second sentence, because blank submissions are very seldom really requests for an article about a topic, which is what the template assumes.  In my experience, blank submissions are mistakes.  It might help to say that their submission has no content.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Do we really require reviewers to promptly remove unsourced BLP drafts from draft space? ~Kvng (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this one need a db-g10 option? MER-C 14:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Change the word "format" to "develop" Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Support, but the same options apply as to bio, submissions that may be capable of improvement and submissions that should be dropped. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * This is where multiple decline reasons are needed. This should be used quite frequently in combination with decline and deletion for advertising. MER-C 14:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious. But I don't know/ or think the note to reviewers is necessary. The script already has inbuilt means of directly requesting G12. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the note and put a G12 tag in the script Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Necessary option. Some duplicate submissions were by the same editor who try to push from different angle so as to get alternative accepted if one get rejected, while in rare cases it is coincidence two people writing on similar thing. In either case we must review one at a time (preferably more developed, not the older). –Ammarpad (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We need this even if not used very often. I'd like to see the page refirected to the other one by the script automatically. Let the script post the decline on the user's page and #REDIRECT:pagename on the draft. Legacypac (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I think this decline reason should be removed as an option. Most of the legitimate declines using this should use instead. This reason is potentially abused by reviewers who do not like the writing style used in the submission. Style issues can be corrected though collaborative editing once the submission is in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kvng. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Necessary option and written succinctly. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could maybe use one more sentence suggesting that the user consider a marge, but it also works as is. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No problems here. MER-C 20:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I think this decline reason should be removed as an option. Although there is a hard requirement for inline citations on contentious material in BLP submission, this reason is most frequently abused to decline submissions with non-standard reference formatting. Issues with BLP citations are already captured in . The other issues we're nattering about here can be fixed once the submission is in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the topic is clearly notable and there is no hoaxes in it it should be mainspaced. This is a bad reason to decline - tagging with RefImprove is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * I routinely scavenge category where articles declined for this reason are dumped and found that many are mainspace worthy. Either topic is notable or not, either enough minimum acceptable references are provided or not; but the near perfect arranging of references should be left to copy editors not newbies who struggle to fix up references. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kvng, remove as an option. Seen this abused way too much. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this need any addition. Communication to newbie should be as succinct as possible. Suffice to say once you're told that your submission is not worthy of encyclopedia then definitely you will not get surprised if it is deleted. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * Support - There are two varieties of this, ones that should be taken quickly to G10 as attack pages or G3 as insults to Wikipedia, and those that aren't obviously speedy candidates but are obviously bad jokes, and should usually go to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Add the words "and this page will be deleted soon." And then the reviewer should tag as G3 or even better the decline template should include a G3 tag. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this one also needs to be accompanied with an appropriate CSD tag. MER-C 12:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose
"English Wikipedia only publishes pages in English. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language to contribute to."

Keep it simple. Rarely does someone come back and translate the submission, and telling them to translate is not needed. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Lack of content is not the only reason to suggest a merge. ~Kvng (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposed article does merit an article of its own, but the content submitted here could be incorporated into an existing article. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

+1 Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Support - Some are worth the encouragement to improve. Some are not, often autobiographies or garage bands.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * –Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MER-C 20:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Support. We need some form of this when the submission doesn't meet notability but it doesn't fall into any of the classes.  I use it for products, software (when web content isn't right), books.  I would like to see products, software, and books split off.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I assume these messages have been "improved" over time and I fear they now suffer from cumulative TL;DR and WP:OVERLINK issues. Here's a proposed cleanup: ~Kvng (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This submission's references do not adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. Wikipedia notability policy requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Referencing for beginners) so that there is clear evidence the subject is notable. If multiple reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.


 * I support this simplfied version. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the simplified version. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the simplified version. MER-C 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Comment - We need to rethink how this one is meant to be used. Is it meant to be used to just mean that a submission needs to be killed with fire, or is it used, as it implies, to mean that the submission is covered specifically by a paragraph in WP:NOT?  Some editors think that this can be used to mean Do Not Resubmit regardless of what the crud is.  I have always thought that it required a NOT paragraph, so that it didn't apply to the majority of crud submissions.  Need to review how it is meant to be used.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Get rid of this one, at last as written, immediately ready for abuse by reviewers, and unclear to the submitter exactly why it is being declined. Any reason at WP:NOT should have another decline rationale which applies. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs major improvement. The "not social media" reasons should be broken out into a new decline reason for starters. MER-C 12:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Support - As noted above, the oppose argument is true but terrible. Submitters with pet topics should be discouraged, not encouraged, and we don't need to take their spam into mainspace for improvement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I think this decline reason should be removed as an option. Achieving NPOV is not feasible for new authors working on pet subjects. In many cases, the only way this is going to get improved through collaboration in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Either it is bad enough to CSD, or it can be sent to main and tagged with NPOV. No need for this one. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The summary at WP:FICT says, "Fictional elements are expected to follow the same notability guidelines as any other topic." This should be removed as a decline reason or the message should be conformed to include the additional information included in the other topic-specific notability decline messages.
 * Should be removed. Nebulous and unclear, another rationale will apply. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Just create the redirect. MER-C 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * –Ammarpad (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Needs a "tag for G2 speedy deletion" option. MER-C 12:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I think this decline reason should be removed as an option. WP:V issues are not a reason to reject a draft. ~Kvng (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose but completely different reasons than the above. Verifiability issues fail to establish notability, and can be rejected as notability issues.  No need to keep both this and the notability reasons.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen this used as a rationale to decline because of lack of inline refs despite good refs appearing in the submission at the end in a bibliography. No need to keep this and the notability one. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

 * Wording is fine to post to the user's talkpage. Build a CSD tag into the script. Many editors don't remember to CSD it. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks OK. I believe pages that merit this declining are rare as I hardly come across them, but incorporating the CSD module like G12 will be useful. I support that. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Build it as an auto CSD. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, but needs a CSD tag. MER-C 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Big picture comments
All of the above strikes me as an explosion of verbosity, bloat, and complexity, and ignoring the WP:TL;DR effect. Much of the comments are likely very useful, but they belong on a talk page, either the draft talk page or user talk page, and not in a coloured box, but made to look like human correspondence. The draft page header declined notice should be short, to the point, and liking to the talk page with the verbose explanation.

More importantly, one of the main options should be the short simple “Rejected” template, not explaining, but firmly rejecting, and suitable for all the random but obviously not suitable, though not speediable, submissions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what this page is attempting to do - cut down on the verbiage and get things to the "short and sweet" point. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Primefac. I’m happy for this thread to be moved elsewhere if you think elsewhere is better.
 * I’m thinking ... not concluding ... these template comments are repeating things stated at the individual notability sub guideline pages, and in the interest of short and sweet, better not to do that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * For all notability related declines, I would link User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable just before the (re)Submit button, and ask the author to acknowledge and point out the two best sources. Do this instead of replicating notability sub guideline text. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)