Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

How would someone call for a review of a probationary reviewer?
As per the title really, looked at a draft of an article that's "under review" and instead of making a decision the probationary reviewer (Ae245) has instead chosen to attempt to add biographical material to it from a clearly non-reputable source (thebiography.org).

The site's "about" page alone screams "low grade" with numerous basic grammar mistakes Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the first step is not to immediately call for them to be removed from the project; discuss the matter with them and see where they are coming from and if they appear receptive to the (hopefully constructive) criticism of their edits. Obviously, if that does not yield positive results, then a review can be done by me or any other admin who feels comfortable making that decision. If said admin does not remove and you do not agree (and/or said admin says more discussion is needed) then bringing it here for a wider project-based review is probably the best bet. You can, of course, come straight here for a wider project review, but please make sure that you let the reviewer in question know about the discussion so they can participate (on the off chance they don't watch this page or missed the discussion being posted). Primefac (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Primefac thanks for the reply, I'll leave a message on their talk page. Have to say though I'm very surprised at what I found given they added clearly unsuitable sources to establish WP:BLP material and then deemed the article acceptable for mainspace. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

AFC Script comment on originator of draft
The AFC script provides a comment if the originator of a draft is blocked, stating the duration of the draft, and the reason given by the administrator. I think that it needs one tweak. If the originator is partially blocked, it says that they are blocked, not that they are partially blocked. For instance, you can see this with Draft:Burnett Township, Santa Clara County, California. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I concur. A minor tweak is needed, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment inline
FYI, a template used for the development of draft articles, has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

5.43.87.31 and timestamps
modified date timestamps at WP:AFC/R into a different format with this edit. It was subsequently reverted. But if this wasn't caught, would this date format cause problems with the archival bot? -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It would cause problems, but an edit like that is almost always going to be detected on such a widely watched page. That one in particular is also under a page protection where edits made by new or unregistered users need to be approved by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion(s), please
I was going to accept Draft:Victoria Starmer, because the sources look to me enough to pass GNG, and I couldn't find any major issues with it. Then I realised this had been draftified following this AfD only a month ago, and the sources back then were pretty much the same as now. Given that our ultimate yardstick for assessing drafts is 'would this survive a hypothetical AfD?', and seeing as this one sort of did, sort of didn't, I'm hesitant to just overrule the AfD consensus. Would someone else please take a look and let me know what they think? Ta muchly, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The only point of note about the subject is that she is the spouse of a politician who has a named position in the parliament, therefore inheriting her husband's notability. I would not have published the article based on just this one fact. Just a disclosure, I had nominated several similar articles for deletion discussions, and the end result were that they were redirected to their spouses' article. Articles for deletion/Mary Chee Bee Kiang and Articles for deletion/Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee. – robertsky (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that's what you're saying, @Robertsky, but just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that she gets any sort of automatic notability as the spouse of someone (be it of the LOTO, or possibly in a few days' time, of the PM). I'm saying the sources satisfy GNG, specifically #1-3 and 7 (also 8, if you ignore the fact that the publication is the same as in 3). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that she is only in the news because of her partner, not her. Whatever are covered in the sources, despite of what maybe satisfying GNG, can be easily be a couple of sentences in the personal life section of Keir Starmer, which is the case already. There is no need for a standalone article on her at this juncture. If she is a PM's wife, there may be a presumption of notability, but not all spouses have a public life or do public work that warrant a separate article. – robertsky (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Although in one sense the sources at first appear to have significant coverage they feel forced and all just because she is Keir Starmers wife rather than because she's notable in any other way. All but one sources titles are some form of "Keirs wife" and the one that isn't is just a passing mention. #1 even starts by saying she is low profile apart from having to do a few public appearances as his wife. It does feel that if they weren't desperate to write something about Keirs wife she would not be notable and appears to avoid publicity. The "personal life" section adds nothing that is not shared so could be on Keirs article, and the rest is mostly just personal info. Frankly as she appears to avoid publicity and according to #1 "has never done an interview - and according to Sir Keir, that's not about to change." this seems like a WP:BLP violation. It's not just outing her personal information it also says what her mother does and her sisters name. Just based on Biographies_of_living_persons it's a firm no for me. KylieTastic (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noting that there were only two sources added between the draftification and now, and both are "who is this woman that is married to the presumptive next PM" pieces. I would normally decline for such a little change, but in about 48 hours I do somewhat agree with the above that if the precedent for the wife of a PM to be notable and have an article, you might as well wait until it's official and then accept. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, all. I'll release this back into the pool, then, because I don't want to decline it (not sure I could convincingly explain why, if asked), and don't want to accept it, either, against what seems to be the consensus here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Despite the reason for existence of GNG coverage (because she is Keirs wife), IMO GNG coverage does exist and my thought would be to accept it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have accepted it, she clearly easily meets WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new § Remove link to the article wizard
You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new § Remove link to the article wizard. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Empty Submissions
Some pending change reviewers accept empty (and thus automatically declined) submissions; and other reviewers reject them; and I simply cannot decide. Do we want to decide this one way or the other? Is there anything to be gained by clogging the list — however little — with pointless, empty, trivially declined entries? Nick Levine (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly not sure what you're asking about here. Drafts don't have automatic pending changes enabled, so PCRs shouldn't have anything to do with the draft process. A blank draft should be declined, which is trivially easy to do and takes no less time than rejecting (which leaves no room for improvement). If you are seeing AfC reviewers rejecting blank drafts, please tell them to stop. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if Nick is talking about Articles for creation/Redirects rather than drafts? KylieTastic (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. Nick Levine (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. See my reply below then. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn’t realised this talk page covered multiple types of creation request. Apologies for the confusion. I’m specifically talking about Articles for creation/Redirects. Nick Levine (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Only vandalism should be rejected, in my opinion. There are a ton of reasons why a blank request may be submitted, and the user may not even realise it was blank when they submitted it (basically people can't figure out how to read instructions and end up doing things like putting their request inside of a void or similar). Primefac (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Primefac that looks like really clear guidance. Nick Levine (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

AFCH Helper Script and Categories
User:Mathglot left a message on my talk page asking me not to edit categories when I am editing AFC drafts. This can be seen at the bottom of my talk page. The example that he gave of what he was asking me not to do is this edit. As an AFC reviewer can see, I was using the yellow Comment button to insert a comment into a draft, and it appears that the script did cleanup on the categories, inserting colons in front of them. However, that was mistaken cleanup, because the categories should be disabled while the draft is in draft, and will be enabled when the draft is accepted. I replied that I know little about categories, and I seldom edit them. If I accept a draft, I normally tag it with Improve categories to request that gnomes review the categories. I said that it appeared that the AFCH script was messing with the categories, and that I would start a discussion of the issue at the AFCH talk page (here). So, is the script editing the categories in an incorrect way? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I think it's fine for anyone at Afc to edit categories of AFC drafts. The only thing I am asking, is for those drafts containing Draft-protected categories (i.e., embedded in template Draft categories), please do not prefix the categories with a colon. As Robert says, this is "mistaken cleanup", and it makes things worse. I have nothing against any other kind of category edit before, during, or after Afc. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, there is nothing wrong with having colon-hidden categories instead of using draft categories. That being said, I was under the impression that AFCH ignored the latter when doing routine cleanup. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's handled somewhere near here or here, but I'm not a js-jockey. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a bit odd and probably confuses some new editors, but not a huge issue. Note, it is already raised as an issue, so just waiting for a volunteer code monkey. Also on a related topic see this one. KylieTastic (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Bryan Mealer
Could some AfC reviewers please have a look at this draft and the rationale used to reject it. Thank you very much. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the article was on "Muck City" I would accept it too. But it says little about the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Prose quality/rough translation
I was looking at reasons for declining, and I see nothing about prose quality when it relates to translation. Should we say something along the lines "avoid declining an article if it is a rough translation; instead, tag it with rough translation? @WhatamIdoing Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Template:AfC submission/comments says:
 * The submission appears to be written in language. This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.
 * I didn't see any others that related to translation, and this is for no translation, rather than a poor translation, and WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions does not mention bad grammar, need for copyediting, or similar problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad grammar is not a reason to decline; we are primarily here to assess notability and neutrality. If folks are using that regularly as a decline reason, then yes, we should add a note about not declining for that reason (unless it's a single editor, in which case we just trout them). Primefac (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone know why AFCH has been re-adding a duplicate comment?
See Special:Diff/1233550011, the script has (in multiple instances on this draft's history) re-added a duplicate comment to the top of the page. Any help in why that is so I can prevent it if I see it again in the future, and what to do to prevent it now would be appreciated. Thanks, microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a known bug, see e.g. this and that discussion; current working hypothesis is that it's when an AFC comment is malformed. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jacob A. Eaton
Why isn't this long serving state legislator notable? I don't understand why the references are objectionable? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @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)


 * I found some and added them User:DoubleGrazing. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work, with those improvements I've gone ahead and accepted the draft. Curbon7 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Four months cheeseburger gift
Hi AFC reviewers, Anyone in their free time, may look at the last four months backlog pending drafts. A cheeseburger from me 🤣. They are: Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Draft:'alam al-mansûr
 * Draft:Evkaf Administration of Cyprus
 * Draft:Clothes in Poland
 * Draft:Coastal Television
 * Draft:Mark Ginzburg.

Reviewing accepted AfC drafts
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. C F A  💬  17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Because this is asked here multiple times a year, I've added the section WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Folks should feel free to iterate on it. Hope it helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks NL. I agree with what you've written there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible Misunderstanding of Rejection
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)
 * 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)
 * That is what I thought. So maybe the guidance for reviewers needs to be clarified, since this was a good faith error by a reviewer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * That's what I thought. I have a template that states that, rejectdraft, and was wondering if I had the sense correct.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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.  Ken Tony  Shall we discuss? 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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!''  Ken Tony  Shall we discuss? 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * . 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.  Ken Tony  Shall we discuss? 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like your name was removed as inactive yesterday . I think you just need to request to be restored to the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Mgp28 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just post here and I"ll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whiiiiich I've now done. you should be good to go. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot . Really appreciate it. Besh wishes!  Ken Tony  Shall we discuss? 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Nitish Rajput
Are any admins here able to check if Draft:Nitish Rajput is G4able after the AfD three days ago? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Articles for sea-ation? S0091 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * We're thinking about adding auto detection of this to Special:NewPagesFeed via T327955. It was mentioned by a developer the other day in Discord. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are explanations of "declined" and "rejected" for drafts?
I can't find it again but this was one concern of someone asking a question in the Teahouse which I found in the archives.

The person was told about the difference and said they had tried to find information on the distinction but couldn't.

If I'm asking in the wrong place, I don't see a better one.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Good question. There is WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions which says when to reject. The only info on the differences I can find is WikiProject Articles for creation/Draft decline or reject help which has almost no incoming links and isn't part of the AfC documentation. We probably need a concise statement, linked to the reject template, to explain that decline is for topics that might well be a proper encyclopedia article and reject is for topics that are just not the kind of thing covered in our encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I usually find a way to use really good Teahouse or Help Desk responses. If I can find one, I think I know where to put it so it can be seen by new editors.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Agreed. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, "reject" is the real world word for both AFC-decline and AFC-reject. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I would not say ever. See WP:Before they were notable for some examples of articles that were deleted due to notability but later met the criteria (ex. Nicki Minaj).  S0091 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like it. I'll use what with the clarification by .—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, take a look.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts
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)


 * 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)
 * Same page creator, so I would also just redirect to the "better" one. Might also be worth an AfC comment to indicate there's a duplicate page with history. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Flojaune Cofer
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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Interestingly there's an earlier version by – 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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.
 * @Muboshgu Thank you also for your thoughts. Currently I do not see them as notable. Another reviewer may differ. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * @DMacks I use it, and like it, but don't feel strongly about it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

AFC to AFD
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 Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * Here is the link to the discussion on SafariScribe's talk page for context. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Convenience link: Articles for deletion/Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning
 * 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. 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)