Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 44

Draft:Universal Coin & Bullion
I had this article reviewed multiple times and I have made all of the corrections stated by the review so it should now be ready to be accepted into Wikipedia. Would it be wrong of me to have someone with the AFC tools on here to give it a final review and accept it into Wikipedia? --Excel23 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Excel23, you made all of the corrections requested by one reviewer after six submissions within 48 hours. Another reviewer might be interested in other issues besides sourcing.  But do you have a conflict of interest?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No but I have purchased from them if that counts which is how I learned about the company. I just wanted to get it reviewed and accepted because I felt confident in it being accepted and I'm just impatient. I was contemplating on just abandoning the article but I wanted to have it reviewed again and see if I'm right about notability but if it turns out I'm wrong I will abandon it.--Excel23 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said in the section above, there's nothing stopping from moving it yourself, but with that many declines don't be surprised if it gets a lot of scrutiny once in the article space. I do see that it's been resubmitted, though, so the other option is to wait for another review. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Had no idea I could do that. I will still work on it.--Excel23 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Universal Coin & Bullion. I think it is not usually goodo advice to suggest that someone move their own draft to mainspace. It so frequently leads to unsatisfactory results, that it ought to be prohibited--. I consider this yet another example. (we have had that discussion here before) DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with . Telling newbies that they can move their unaccepted/able drafts to mainspace should be discouraged per WP:BEANS, it also defeats the entire purpose of AFC. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I try to heavily list the caveats and addenda when I do give that advice, for what it's worth; there are some people that get militant when we insist that someone must go through AFC. To get a little snarky, it sounds like I can't suggest they move it, but I also can't tell them to submit it and wait for a review, so I guess I'll go back to saying nothing. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I typically say some version of "as is my usual practice, I'll let other people follow up." . or sometimes, "if you insist I'll move it, but I or someone will almost certainly list it for AfD"    DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure WP:BEANS is quite right here. They may do something stupid regardless of what you tell them and they won't magically get smart if you tell them nothing. If we want to improve AfC, we should be open about it being optional and attempting to be helpful. We should not be acting as gatekeepers here, we are escorts. ~Kvng (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "[moving a draft into mainspace] ought to be prohibited" - I think it should be very strongly discouraged as it is almost always WP:Disruptive editing not prohibited entirely, since there are enough cases where it's not disruptive that a "3RR-style" "bright-line rule" isn't the best answer.
 * What I do: If someone DOES move it and it's not obviously a "good move," and there's no previous disruptive or other WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, or similar behavior, I gently warn them and undo the move.  Depending on if the topic is possibly notable or not, I may encourage them to improve it or collaborate before submitting it for review, encourage them to "db-author" it, or, if it's a valid user-space page but not a valid article, move it to their user space and ask them NOT to move it anywhere else.
 * That's assuming I don't have the time and topic-knowledge to actually clean it up and make it "mainspace-ready" myself of course.
 * If I notice that it's not a "new editor" I try to take into account the editor's likely wiki-knowledge before taking action.
 * If it's a "knowledgeable but new" account, I get out my Sockomatic 3000™ sock-detector that I got from Inspector Gadget - which unfortunately is as buggy as all get out (because "Inspector Gadget") . davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are uses for it. But the only way of preventing misuse is to prevent it technically, & require Admin or at least ECC.  DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of AfC is to accept articles once they're developed to a point where they're unlikely to be deleted. Bypassing AfC may ultimately be self-defeating for authors but I've seen many cases of reviewers defeating the purpose of AfC by repeatedly declining flawed articles on notable topics. None of us has perfect judgment. Please give authors good information about the process and respect their choices. ~Kvng (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual  current really essential function of AfC is to give a a handle on promotional editing, and if they know enough they will exploit any loophole.  Yes, there are many reviewers who use inappropriate standards.;  the way to deal with that is to educate or if necessary remove them from AfC; educating experienced colleagues is a rather delicate thing to do. I try it, very very carefully, a few times a month. It can work.  DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that inexperienced editors should be discouraged from moving drafts to article space, but they are also permitted to create articles in article space, and there is no reason why we should treat one door into article space differently than another. As User:DGG says, the essential function of AFC is dealing with promotional editing.  The length of the wait for a review is a reason why new editors are likely to want to move drafts into article space.  Also, as User:Kvng says, if reviewers have an unreasonable test on notable articles, the flawed articles are likely to be moved into article space in no better shape than if the reviewer had been more reasonable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to decline the bullion draft when it was moved into article space. In my opinion, this was a case where too much of the effort of improving a draft went into sources, and not enough into neutral tone and establishing notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * More generally, to deal with this we need first of all to decrease the time of initial review, and second, to review accurately. These would appear contradictory goals unless we can interest more good people in doing this--we in particular need people with expertise in more of the fields in which drafts are written.  But we can do some changes that will help. First, we should remove material that meets the speedy criteria at the first opportunity-(I look when I can at the draft feed in NP and NPP to get non-articles before they are even submitted )  Second, we can remove some bottlenecks--for example here is no real reason to decline redirects instead of checking and accepting them. For another, we can --finally--have the option to automatically  transclude the comments on the submitters user page.  Third, we can tag with more than one reason when it applies--in particular, notability and promotionalism  . Fourth, we can more frequently use the opportunity to tailor the decline notice (when I do this, I put the special matter in bold, so it isn't mistaken for boilerplate)..  DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not get the memo about our primary role being about blocking promotional contributions. I still consider WP:AFD behavior to be our guiding light. Although there is a significant contingent of editors who try, WP:AFD participants and closers are still reluctant to delete articles with good evidence of notability but also accusations of promotionalism.
 * I have been doing some AfC submissions of promising G13 drafts. I have been surprised that, despite our advertising a 2+ month backlog the wait is typically on the order of a week. It looks like we are already doing the things suggests we should be doing. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yet another darn backlog drive idea
How about this (numbers arbitrary): one re-review required every tenth review for the first 50, then one every five after that? That is, each user must conduct re-reviews so that their reviews get counted for their total (for barnstars and ranking). (While I'm here, I've put pending-subs back up and am doing helper script bugs and feature requests again, oldest first) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would consider it important that the re-re-reviews be conducted by a different reviewer.  DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

duplicate articles
I have come across two types of duplicate articles in AFC that I think we need quicker ways of filtering out such as a speedy deletion criteria. One is where we already have an article so Draft:Abraham Lincoln isn't needed as we already have Abraham Lincoln. the other is where two or more articles arrive with basically the same name Draft:Adam laghimi and Draft:Adam Laghimi being current examples. We could of course just redirect. But deletion probably makes more sense.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if speedy is really necessary, since as you say redirection will do just fine. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

article name as final heading
I don't know if others have noticed this, but there is something in the AFC process that results in a lot of drafts having the article name as a superfluous heading - for example I, II, III, IV Is there a way to fix this?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "submit your draft" button is a "new section" preload of {{subst:submit}}, and despite the fact that it says "leave the section bit empty" people still put a fecking header. Primefac (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we get someone to create a new template based on {{subst:submit}}?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there's no good way to edit a page *and* add new content without making it a "new section" edit. I know there was working on a script-assisted method of generating, but it looks like that either stalled or just never got implemented. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The script was mostly written back when I proposed it (you can test it from here). But there are two outstanding problems – the first two bullets at User_talk:SD0001/AFC-submit-wizard.js – the first a limitation of AFCH gadget and the second a limitation of this script itself. These need to be resolved first – shouldn't take much time, but have got a lot on my plate :( – SD0001  (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Some ideas to improve the submissions list
It would help me if the Pe nding AfC Submissions table added davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  14:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * how many re-submissions there have been
 * how many in the last week (so I can de-prioritize rapid-fire re-re-re-submitters),
 * when the last re-submission was (so I can tell who's been waiting the longest), and, if possible,
 * a diff between the last decline/rejection and the current revision (so I can do some quick eyeballing for improvement).


 * I agree that this may be useful. I might like to get more involved in drafts where a draft proponent is keen and active.
 * In the possible implementation of this wish, might it be useful, or easy to do along side, to collect this meta data on draft submission on the draft talk page? When submitted.  Submitted by who?  Diff since the previous submission?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Chrom
This draft was rejected a few days ago, and has been resubmitted without comment by an IP address. I was about to nominate it for deletion, and then decided that requesting semi-protection would be less drastic and will prevent any further disruptive resubmission by IP addresses. My general thinking is that requesting semi-protection is less drastic than other sanctions. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The first thing to say to the proponent is WP:WAF. Fix that problem, and most other problems will go away.
 * Second, I’d like to see some rules. How to impose them? The rule is, DO NOT DO SPINOUTS IN DRAFTSPACE. Not without a talk namespace consensus to do so. Chrom is already a major element of Fire Emblem Awakening.  It was properly converted to a redirect. To reverse that decision, short of BOLD reversion of the redirect, open a thread at Talk:Fire Emblem Awakening. I think that discussion would not succeed in generating consensus for a spinout (mainly on WP:WAF reasons), but it would inform and engage interested editors to the benefit of improving the article Fire Emblem Awakening.
 * Semi-protection? I think that is close to the best idea, which is it make it difficult to draft on anything where there is a mainspace title or redirect. Given the message: Edit mainspace first, and use the talk page to discuss spinouts before drafting them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation
Some of you might be interested in this draft. It seems that there have been three different versions of this draft, which have been deleted for various reasons, and the draft has been tendentiously resubmitted, after being rejected three times, and the rejection tags were removed by the author, and it was tagged for G11, and the G11 tag was removed by the author. A report was then made to WP:ANI, and the originator has been indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sock-farm spotted, see not-yet-blocked editors with very similar names starting here. Some were created by others, those with still-in-public-log page-creations or non-deleted edits to their credit are editing on this topic.  Consider opening a "pro-forma/no CU" WP:SPI so future socks' creations can be eligible for db-banned.  If you have seen IP addresses editing any of the now-deleted pages created by these socks, consider asking for a CU "sleeper check."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They don't just use names in that format, i think they started as in 2017 then  2018,  2019, also User talk:216.107.193.34 2020, and  in 2020. I looked to see if I could find an "Ian Winiarski" linked to the company but the closest I could find is a High School Student interested in space so not sure if promotion or just a very keen kid. KylieTastic (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like everyone I spotted is blocked,, , , , , and in addition to the ones you named.   If this article or draft is re-created, an SPI may be in order.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeking consensus language for Old drafts section
Back in August, the text of Articles for creation was changed from: "Some old drafts have been identified as "promising", . . . If you disagree with the tag, remove it." (Option 1) to "Some old drafts have been identified as "promising", . . .  If you disagree with the tag, discuss its removal with the editor who placed it." (Option 2) The tag in question is promising draft. Since I did not find in the talkpage archives any discussion that established consensus for this change, I have reverted it (per WP:BRD), and am seeking consensus here; thank you in advance. Pinging, who made the change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) I have made some bold improvements based on this discussion. Revert and let me know where I went wrong if you don't think this is an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, as longer standing. I don't know of any other example where discussion is required before removing a tag, let alone discussion with a specific editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Well no one has objected to the change until now and you could have waited for the discussion before reverting. Option 2 because it is common courtesy to discuss the removal of the tag with the editor who placed it as is advised on many tags and it makes the tag worthless if it can be removed by any editor for any reason. For example the reason you have given for removal such as " not being edited" does not address the notability of the subject or "not promising" is personal opinion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you substantiate your claim about other tags that require discussion to remove? A tag that can be removed by anyone is not worthless because if someone disagrees with removal, removal can be reverted. I do agree that some viable justification should be given in the edit comment when these are removed. ~Kvng (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, haven't fully investigated but point 3 at WP:WTRMT seems to cover it particularly as it is a contentious tag, also the Template:NPOV tag guidance on the WTRMT page suggests consensus at the NPOV board, and the Template:UPE tag is in a RFC on the talk page over when and if it should be removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:WTRMT is advising editors to discuss potentially contentious edits. This is reasonable blanket advice we see in other policy and guidance and we could include that here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the changes, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Lowering standards for non-promotional articles?
Just musing here... Right now the backlog is untenable and quite discouraging for good-faith new editors whose articles aren't approved in the first 1-2 days. Trying to think of solutions that could help triage. One that occurs to me, and which may already get applied in practice to some extent, is to have two standards, the usual one for articles that could have a potential promotional intent (products, recent books/movies, living people, companies, charities, etc.) and one for articles that are rarely created by COI editors (dead people, historic sites, geography, science, math, other "academic"/"encyclopedic" topics, history, books and movies more than 20-30 years old (not sure about this cutoff but perhaps around here), etc.). For the latter, do a quick copyvio check, make sure it has a reference or two... then it's good enough for AFC and can be dealt with via NPP, prod, etc. if needed. I think this would be more encouraging for good-faith editors, and it would help us more efficiently process the non-garbage. Thoughts about this as a general approach? Obviously the details could be refined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So basically, review drafts as normal, keeping to the theory that we're triage to keep the worst drafts out, and letting NPP and the gnomes take care of any residual cleanup? I'm not sure what you're suggesting. And for the millionth time Right now the backlog is untenable is utter nonsense; we've had worse, and we've overcome larger backlogs (the backlog is periodic, and we're currently in an upswing). Primefac (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this as relevant for things like the Korean drafts that got declined (AFC reviewers aren't the best equipped to evaluate Korean sources about 200-year-old Korean novels), Fátima de Madrid (which was just declined for not having enough sources even though one of the sources was an article summarizing the debate about whether she actually exists--obviously suggesting that multiple sources exist), Draft:Sphincterochila zonata that just got a comment that it needs expert attention about whether it is a synonym of another species -- these aren't plausibly promotional and in my view should be quick-passed to get eyes in mainspace. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume experienced reviewers already know that some subject areas deserve more skepticism than others. BLPs and articles where WP:NCORP applies are obvious examples. You are right to suspect that your suggestions are already applied in practice. ~Kvng (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some do, but many do not. The majority of the Korean drafts were declined! I have other examples above, and I just encountered Miloš Cvetić which was declined several times before being rejected and then deleted. This despite the existence of plenty of sources at Google Books, available with a trivial search. one example book in translation: The beginnings of cinematography in Yugoslavia: 1896-1918: "Miloš Cvetić, 1845 - 1905, actor, director and writer, one of the most striking figures of our theatrical life at the end of the 19th century. He played in Novi Sad, Zagreb and Belgrade. As an actor, he developed from a romantic to a realist, while as ..." Whatever standard people are applying for non-suspect articles, it remains too high. Formally lowering the bar would help prevent bad declines and would also speed review for articles like this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I see stuff like this more often than I'd like. It has been my impression that it comes from reviewers with less experience but maybe I'm too generous. ~Kvng (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The rule here, is assume good faith. When we do not have any reason to think otherwise, we assume that people transcribe references accurately, and that the references actually do source what they are said to source. (I have, for example, started accepting the relevant Korean articles, and a similarly articles on  Serbian historical figures, if what is asserted in the article seem likely to be at the level that we would accept if we could read the documentation. Unfortunately, for some of them, it is impossible to tell what the accomplishments actually are, and I have not been accepting drafts if the most that is said is "friend and helper of [some notable figure}..." any more than I would if the material were in English. )  DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about fasttracking a draft
Out of the blue, after working on the unreferenced article backlog, I decided I wanted to help improve some AfC articles. So I randomly picked out Draft:Jasmina Ahmetagić and have given it an overhaul. The actual text was pretty good already, it was just the entirety of the reference list that needed replacing with proper sourcing. Now that i've done so, I was wondering if there is a process for fasttracking reviews on drafts one is confident will pass? I know that, as an established editor, I could just move it to mainspace myself, but that just feels...a bit wrong. Feels like closing a deletion discussion that one took part in. Silver seren C 21:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no way to speed up the review process. Reviews are done by a limited number of volunteers, who do what they can when they can, in no particular order. If you are confident that your draft would survive an AfD discussion, then you are allowed to move it to the main encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess i'll do that. :/ Is there any particular process to follow regarding that to not mess up the AfC system or can I just move the page to mainspace? Silver  seren C 21:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You will just need to remove the draft template, I think. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if there are "de-activated" categories, you will need to remove the leading : or remove the draft categories template. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see you already took care of the categories. I did some technical work including linking to the other-language version and putting a translation template on the talk page and other misc. gnome-work.  There's still more gnome-work to be done with the WikiProject templates though.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i'm not good at that sort of technical stuff. I usually leave it to other users or the bots. :P Silver  seren C 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We all contribute where we can. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you, a very experienced and very responsible editor, wish to take responsibility for saying a draft is OK, as you would if someone else had actually submitted it,, by all means move it to mainspace. When I do that for something which isn't submitted, I deal with the technicalities by first submitting it, and then fixing up the details, and then accepting it. Then the script and the bots do the work,, and they get it right more often than if Idid it manually. The actual process of submission is purely a technical step. It's the approval that counts.  (when I see a rather new editor trying the same thing to evade review, it's another matter).  DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Content moved from mainspace to draftspace
I have a little time now to follow up on a discussion I started here last month. I was set off by "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace" edit comments on moves. I have found where that message comes from and have requested it be improved.

I have discovered that we've had at least 784 new articles moved to draft space so far in November (~35/day) and a spot check raises questions about how much of that actually belongs here. I've started an NPP discussion about it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that a weekly annotated listing is available at User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch (this existed since before the category setup came along). – SD0001  (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The result of this NPP discussion was that NPP reviewers are confident that their practices are adhering to WP:DRAFTIFY. I did identify a potential improvement for WP:DRAFTIFY #2 the article does not meet the required standard. I think it would be clearer if it said, the article is likely to be deleted. Any thoughts from anyone on this proposal? ~Kvng (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please visit Wikipedia_talk:Drafts to comment on the proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

AFCH bugs?
Occasionally I come across pages such as this: Special:Diff/992884648 where the AFCH script accept will move the page, but it does not perform the follow-on steps like cleanup, AFC talk page banner, user Talk notice, etc. Might this be a bug in the script? Or could it be attributed to some kind of connection hangup when accepting?

And on this random Draft page Draft:Young Tak, the script makes it look like the draft has not yet been submitted, offering me a "Comment/Submit" options vice "Accept/Decline/Comment" options. Any thoughts there? -2pou (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Draft:Young Tak issue I believe is because the submit is before (20200909050930) the decline at 20200911150418 - i.e. they just copied the previous submit. KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The first issue you mention is a client-side issue, either because of lag in their browser or because they moved away from the window before the script finished all of its tasks. Nothing we can really do there. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Haris_Stamboulidis
Can you please review this draft for Haris Stamboulidis, it has been rejected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Haris_Stamboulidis

Thank you Akarnikos (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have put a question on the draft's talk page asking for a short list of references that can be used to assess this person's "notability." Drafts of "non-notable" people, no matter how well-written, will not, or at least should not, be accepted.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I reviewed and left a comment on the talk page. Basically, I do not think highly of WP:Reference bombed drafts.  I really like the advice at WP:THREE.  I wish that new topic drafters were told about WP:THREE.  The seem to believe that more references increase the chance of acceptance, but they are wrong, and in fact it delays the draft being reviewed at all.  This got me thinking, with "fast tracking a draft" being mentioned somewhere above, I would be very enthusiastic to review drafts where the author has claimed to have followed the advice at WP:THREE.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Waiting list
Does anyone know how long the waiting list is for AfC nominations? A common refrain from COI/PAID editors is that there's no point in directing people to AfC because the backlog is so long. I'm wondering how true that is. Roughly how long can someone expect to wait? SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's listed on every draft, and every AFC page; the oldest draft is about 3 months old at the moment. However, and we also give this caveat: drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so one has just as much chance (if they submitted today) of getting a review today as they would to have it reviewed in three months (we're actually surprisingly stable over time as far as that's concerned). Primefac (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think, easy to review drafts at the front get reviewed quick. An option for an eager drafter is to ask someone to review it.  Are you talking about regular editors, or SPA accounts?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * to go along with what Priefac and SmokeyJoe said: When I review from anywhere but the "end" of the queue, I am looking for "obvious passes" to move and "obvious failures" to decline/reject/speedy.  If I'm looking at the oldest submissions, or those which haven't been edited in close to 6 months, I may take the time to evaluate the "harder/borderline" cases.  Why do I do this?  1) it's easier - yeah, I know that's not a good reason, but I'm being honest here, 2) it gets the obvious good stuff into the encyclopedia faster, and 3) the poorly submitted drafts get kicked back with a good clue of the minimum that needs to be done before re-submitting, which is almost always:  Learn what "notability" is and demonstrate that the topic IS notable if you can or pick another topic if you can't.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful, everyone, thank you. The issue is what advice to give to paid/COI editors. We used to say always that they should submit new articles to AfC, but people say the wait is too long. I assume that's a misunderstanding, then, and it might be relatively quick. SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My advice to paid/COI editors who want me to "quickly accept" their draft is to
 * Learn what wiki-Notability is,
 * Don't even bother if your TOPIC isn't,
 * Learn what WP:What Wikipedia is not and what WP:NOTHERE means,
 * Expect higher scrutiny because you are a COI editor, so review your draft as if you were "looking for an excuse to reject it" before submitting it, and
 * Unless the topic is "obviously notable" like someone recently elected to high public office, you'll stand a much better chance with me at least if your draft is at least start-class, the number of references is small enough that I can look at all of them, and the quality of at least 2 or 3 of them is high enough that I'm not going to walk away questioning if the topic is at least plausibly notable.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been doing some AfC submissions of promising G13 drafts. The drafts I'm rescuing generally meet 's criteria. I have been surprised that, despite our advertising a 2+ month backlog the wait is typically on the order of a week. Many more are being declined than accepted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding that last point, we've been almost ridiculously consistent on that: ~250 drafts are submitted each day, and ~200 of those are reviewed within the first 48 hours. The issue is that those 40-60 unreviewed drafts generally end up then not being reviewed until they hit the back of the queue (barring the folks that are looking for specific subjects and/or reviewing random drafts). Primefac (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As a comment to Kvng's point, the "at least 2 months "or "at least 3 months" puts off a great many potential editors--people keep quoting it to me, sometimes as a reason for not contributing to WP at all. . Perhaps we should find a different wording. Of course we should try to reduce it also, but that in practice will require either guessing, or finding a better way to involve those of us with the correct subject knowledge and attract more specialist to work on those in their field.
 * It has consistently been the case for the last 10 years or so that at least half the total submissions to WP are declined or deleted, by the various processes at the time. I think the proportion is rising to about 2/3, but we can never expect it will decline substantially.
 * For COI, I will not accept if the overall tone is promotional, which I define as being primarily addressed to potential or present clients, or looking like a corporate web page. For work that only appears promotional  , but probably by a good faith non coi editor, I use NPOV not advertising as the reason.  It makes sense to me that some of us look primarily at the notability , and others at the promotionalism    DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * maybe we can reword based on 's observation. Something like, "Usually reviewed within 48 hours. Submissions with complex issues may take significantly longer." If we're feeling fancy, we can have a bot post an update to the submitter's talk pages after a week assuring them that their submission is still in the queue and giving an updated estimate. ~Kvng (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. At the moment, we advise COI/PAID editors to use AfC, but they say it takes too long and therefore isn't realistic advice. SarahSV (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:SlimVirgin - Thank you for dealing with paid editors and telling them to use AFC. The answer to their complaint that it takes too long is that that is too bad.  (If there were fewer COI drafts in the queue, it might not take as long.)  The more they say that they need to have their drafts approved quickly, the more we need to tell that we do not care what they or their employers say they need.  I would rather not tell them that their drafts will normally be reviewed more quickly than a few months.  Sometimes they just need to wait.  We, the volunteer reviewers, have a different objective, building an encyclopedia, than they, the paid editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. At the moment, we advise COI/PAID editors to use AfC, but they say it takes too long and therefore isn't realistic advice. SarahSV (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:SlimVirgin - Thank you for dealing with paid editors and telling them to use AFC. The answer to their complaint that it takes too long is that that is too bad.  (If there were fewer COI drafts in the queue, it might not take as long.)  The more they say that they need to have their drafts approved quickly, the more we need to tell that we do not care what they or their employers say they need.  I would rather not tell them that their drafts will normally be reviewed more quickly than a few months.  Sometimes they just need to wait.  We, the volunteer reviewers, have a different objective, building an encyclopedia, than they, the paid editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In my experience also, editors over-eager to get their drafts approved are paid editors; editors insistent on having the drafts come out the way they want are coi editors or advocates. There's another idficult group right now, as always at the end of the US academic terms: editors who need to get WP articles accepted for a class assignment but who are being poorly advised--a good educational assignment does not grade on the basis of whether we accept the article. That last group I do feel some compassion for, because it's in no way their fault that they've been given such an erratic goal--the ed program specifically advises against using AfC because of the delays involved--their ambassador is supposed to take responsibility.
 * That said, there is no good reason for a three month or even two month delay--but even if we corrected all the problems causing inefficiency, it's the nature of work on a cooperative queue like this for things to fall behind periodically, and it's the nature of any work of this sort for there to be a trade-off between speed and accuracy. And there can be a real problem with reviewers who insist on going to quickly, because one such reviewer can do quite a lot of damage through over-hasty rejections (somehow, it's much rarer to see over-optimistic acceptances.) DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen another group that is over-eager: New, seemingly-young-adult-or-younger editors who seem to expect "quick responses" to life in general.  They seem to have a "after all, fast-food take-out is fast, why should Wikipedia be any different" way of looking at things. There seems to be a correlation between this type of editor and "I'm sincerely just a fan of ___ and everyone else should be to" topics.  These are good faith editors who don't understand what Wikipedia is WP:About, at least not yet.  They have potential to become valued contributors, provided they are WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and have the required competence. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

G13 warning bot
Of course I am still very broken up about User:Hasteur's untimely death earlier this year. One of the many things we lost was the User:HasteurBot functionality that gave User talk warnings to AfC Draft creators when an AfC draft passed the 5-month no-edit mark, and so was within a month of G!3 eligibility. I think this notice was a good thing: saved both G13 tagging and WP:REFUND work, and supported article creation. Any bot-competent editors want to take on the task of having a new bot take this over? May even be possible to get the HasteurBot code. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A bot was already approved for this task. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That bot operates differently: 1) requires opt in (so basically useless for novice editors who have no way of knowing it's available), and 2) notifies if the user has edited the AfC draft at any point, not just been the creator. I only want notifications on the 8-10 AfC drafts I have actually started, and not the many hundred I have edited at some point, so will not opt in; imagine I am not the only editor who feels that way. But I'll reach out to the bot operator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That bot isn't running, and its operator has clarified that they don't have time to fix it. This task may need to be taken over by yet another bot. – SD0001  (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This talk isn't necessarily the place to ask for a bot, but having a botop that's in the project might help keep it running. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Florence Robinson Weber
Within days of each other, one editor created Draft:Florence Robinson Weber and another editor created an entry on the same subject in mainspace. The latter entry lacks formatting or reliable sources. I assume these entries were a result of a class project, so I don't know what good it would do to reach out to the editors in question. I couldn't move the mainspace entry to draftspace because a draftspace entry already exists. If anyone would take a look at this and fix it, it would be appreciated. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur, the existing draft is better. I draftified the other page with a note pointing the author to the better draft. Looking into it further, I would agree that they're working at least from the same starting point, because they've both paraphrased the same source (not enough to be a copyvio, but there are a few bits that could probably use a rewrite). Primefac (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Move-Protected Page in User Space
I encountered a page which is in a subpage in user space and is submitted for review. So far, so good. I tried to move the page into draft space. I was told that this could not be done. On checking the log, I saw that the page is admin-only-move-protected. I have not previously encountered that restriction on a page that was submitted for review. The reason turns out to be that the originator of the page has tried to move the page, which is a conflict of interest BLP, into article space, and it has had to be moved back, and now has been move-protected. This seems like an unusual way, and not the preferred way, to deal with disruption. An alternative would be create-protecting the title in article space. I have posted a question about this protection on the protecting administrator's talk page; but I would like to know whether any other reviewer has encountered this approach to this form of disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Create-protection is only justified in cases of repeated unacceptable creation by different accounts. Pre-emptive create-protection results in creativity in choosing different titles.  If you are watching the protected title, you will not see it re-created under the different title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've salted repeatedly-created drafts before, but usually because of socking and/or disruption. However, I don't think I normally protect a draft at full protection (usually just ECP to allow for reviewers to move pages). Primefac (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's in line with what I think is proper. Repeatedly created, socking implies more than one account, so account warnings and blocks won't work.  ECP create protection is a very good idea.  I don't support AfC process abuse as justifying pre-emptive SALTing in mainspace.  One should be generally aware that SALTing can be evaded by using a slightly different title, and this is harder to watch for and respond to than a few more rounds of Whac-A-Mole on watched titles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Process for MfD nominating of worthless drafts
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Areo Magazine User:I dream of horses pointed out that our norms for MfD nominating drafts is not documented. See the [[:File:Flowchart for MfD of worthless drafts.png flowchart that I just drew.



I think this is pretty fair picture of the accepted norms. Notes in point form:
 * Any draft at any time can be nominated at MfD for failing a specific line at WP:NOT. However, please be specific.
 * "Not improved" for a draft resubmission is a subjective judgement for a reviewer. I think that the addition of yet another weaker reference is not an improvement.
 * WP:NOTPROMOTION is a perfectly valid MfD nomination rationale for a draft, however, please try to fit WP:G11 first.
 * For WP:NOTWEBHOST, provide evidence of NOTWEBHOSTing activity, such as edits or pageviews. NOTWEBHOST is the most frequently used VAGUEWAVE for a weak nomination.
 * Six months waiting time for G13 for a REJECTED draft is appropriate. A reviewer applying REJECT is not a CSD-objective standard.  The draft proponents must be given time to respond to a mistaken reviewer.  Forcing a short deadline to such a response is more likely to evoke emotional knee jerk reactions than calm consideration of the feedback.
 * G13 was mostly motivated by the small fraction of tens of thousands of draft that could be G10 or G12 violations. For virtually everything else, there is no urgency to delete now.  If you think there is a G10 or G12 issue, tag it, otherwise, leave it for G13.
 * MfD serves very well at backing up reviewers in the face of a draft's obstinate proponent. MfD is probably just busywork if all the proponents have already left the building.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can actually reject a draft for WP:NOT violations.
 * Agreed with the second point.
 * I'm not too fond of the possibility of speedying drafts under G11, particularly for first-time submissions. I can understand if a draft is repeatedly resubmitted without (much) change, but otherwise, an MfD would be better. It seems like there is even more potential for mistaken reviewers, causing more damage since MfDs require consensus and discussion. In contrast, CSDs require, at most, two people to delete (someone to nominate, someone else to delete).
 * G13 covers any WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns as well as G10 and G12 violations. Of course, G10 and G12 violations need to be deleted ASAP for legal reasons.
 * MfDs gives multiple people, several of whom are experienced, a week to correct a mistaken reviewer. This contrasts with WP:G13, where it's probably one newcomer who has six months to correct a reviewer. Both MfDs and G13 confirm the proponents have left the building, but MfD is a more active process. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G13 covers any WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns as well as G10 and G12 violations. Of course, G10 and G12 violations need to be deleted ASAP for legal reasons.
 * MfDs gives multiple people, several of whom are experienced, a week to correct a mistaken reviewer. This contrasts with WP:G13, where it's probably one newcomer who has six months to correct a reviewer. Both MfDs and G13 confirm the proponents have left the building, but MfD is a more active process. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * MfDs gives multiple people, several of whom are experienced, a week to correct a mistaken reviewer. This contrasts with WP:G13, where it's probably one newcomer who has six months to correct a reviewer. Both MfDs and G13 confirm the proponents have left the building, but MfD is a more active process. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * MfDs gives multiple people, several of whom are experienced, a week to correct a mistaken reviewer. This contrasts with WP:G13, where it's probably one newcomer who has six months to correct a reviewer. Both MfDs and G13 confirm the proponents have left the building, but MfD is a more active process. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Emily.
 * I think there are people who patrol new page creations in draftspace, unsubmitted, and they are disinclined to REJECT an unsubmitted draft, but they want to do something to respond to the bad page created. If a draft is submitted, and it fails WP:NOT, I think REJECT is the usual response, and is a good response.
 * I agree with you on being hesitant to bite newcomers with G11 deletions, including the associated templates that punish them on their user_talk page. I think G11 is bet reserved where there is no plausible faith that the newcomer is a genuine intending contributor.  If in doubt, I agree that it is far from obvious that a promotional sounding drafts is deserving of immediate summary deletion with rude messages and hidden records of the offending content.
 * MfDs create a one week deadline, and often there is no good in creating this deadline. It can be better to make a comment on the draft or it talk page, and allow the author six months to respond.  I think MfD is really only of good use if there are people on both sides of the question, and it is good for resolving a disagreement between submitted and reviewer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the fact is that G13 already creates a deadline...but it can be pushed back indefinitely. Sometimes it's best to end the time waste early on. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 09:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Diddly comments on flow chart
Thank you, User:SmokeyJoe. This is useful. I have three small issues, about tendentious resubmission. First, reviewers should normally Reject a draft that was resubmitted after being declined without improvement, rather than going straight to MFD. Second, a reviewer should not Reject a draft and take it to MFD at the same time. It isn't useful to necessary to delete a draft that has just been rejected. Third, if a draft was rejected, discussion should be mandatory before it is resubmitted. That is, it isn't enough to "dramatically" improve the draft unless it was also discussed. Those are small issues, and the flowchart is useful (but should be larger). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First. Ok.  I don’t disagree.
 * Second. That was my point, the one that brought this up.
 * Third. I think in principle, the process should allow for the possibility of a reviewer being wrong to REJECT. However, I have not seen or heard of it happening.  I think “dramatic improvement” alludes to an unusual circumstance.  Asking for a discussion is reasonable.  The challenge is to not put in so many helpful words of guidance that there are too many words.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally when I come across a draft that has been resubmitted with no improvement, I decline again but tell them that if it is resubmitted with no improvement again it will be sent to MfD. SK2242 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * User:DGG, you are working on finding community consensus on deletion of bad idea drafts. Do you have any comments? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no real consensus in the discussion above, or anywhere else. It might however be possible to find some sort of compromise.  We've all been going our own way., but at  least this the discussion here has made each of us aware of alternates.  But I see some agreement on things not to do, as in RMcCs comment just above  on the uselessness of rejecting and going to MfD at the same time, and I agree with his implication that we might do best to wotk first ofn small issues.  If you want me to propose a compromise, it'll take some thinking--at only a small  number of reviewers seem to pay attention to this talk page, and we probably want to make sure the less active reviews stay up to date.  DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * DGG, is "consensus" the wrong word? The flow chart reflects practice, for a long time now, and per WP:Silence, that would be the foundation for consensus that this is how we should do things.  That is, until someone raises their voice. Years ago, MfD was being swamped by worthless or worse drafts, and a heavy mix of worthless but harmless drafts alongside.  Since then, I count three substantive changes: (1) implementation of WP:G13; (2) implementation of the REJECT response in the AFCH tool; and (3) an RfC establishing that "tendentious resubmission" is a good reason to take to a draft to MfD.  Generally, I think this has worked well, from the MfD workload perspective. For some time now, post Portal fuss, MfD has been fairly lightly used, and ow might be a good time to explore possibilities.  You have, I think you explained, been experimenting with possible responses to woefully inappropriate drafts.  I would like to help.  I think some degree of objectivity in deciding when to nominate a draft at MfD is needed, otherwise other editors will devolve to nominating any draft that annoys them, including drafts best left for G13.  Such objective criteria need not be anywhere near as stringent as required by WP:NEWCSD, but I think some objective guidance is important. If I may begin by suggesting some criteria for nominating a draft page at MfD:
 * (a) The page has been edited in the last week, not counting gnome or bot edits (old abandoned pages can be better left for G13, an MfD discussion will not teach anyone anything useful, because they are already gone);
 * (b) The problem is not just private personal or children's data. These problems should be tagged WP:G10 or referred to WP:Oversight, or else (a) above applies.
 * (c) CSD#A11 would apply if it were in mainspace
 * (d) Any line item at WP:NOT
 * Please, DGG, propose something. Only a small number of reviewers seem to pay attention to this talk page, but the ones that do include the ones interested.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The flowchart does represent the general practice, but, as usual for WP, how it is to be very interpreted is very variable., you are right in your implication that I've been avoiding saying something definite. I find it more satisfying here to work on individual questions of individual articles, where I can do something and be done with it;  I can talk about this more, but probably elsewhere.  And in one thing you're too pessimistic: 813 people have this page on their watchlist.
 * At this point here, I will try to do more. It will take me a while, and I will do it in stages. The first step is to recognize there are more types of incoming articles than the flow sheet allows for. It will take a few days to write even that down, and I cannot say I've figured out myself what to do with all of the possibilities. Sometimes when I deal with an article it goes well, sometimes it leaves me and the contributor both angry. But you've helped me above already, in reminding us that we haveto deal with the possibility of a reviewer being wrong. We also have to deal with the fact theat AfD can be wrong, and that in some fields there is continuing conflict about the standards.  DGG ( talk ) 11:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:DGG. Good. I don’t mean to rush you, but see WT:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people.  Even more that CSD#A11 cases in draftspace, I think BLPs of private people, completely unsourced, are a problem that should have a response such as BLPPROD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do indeed think we should have better ways of dealing with them, as we should have better ways for essentially every step of the process. I am not altogether sure this is our most important problem, but I will comment there.
 * But as for the general question of how to deal with drafts that are not yet satisfactory, I do now have a scheme worked out--but it is not really I who have worked it out, it is everyone here, and all I'm trying to do is to word it sensibly. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's say we agree that unsourced BLPs in draftspace is a problem. There is no need to say it is the most important problem when considering a solution to that problem.  Solving one problem at a time can be called "progress".
 * BLPPROD, I will argue, assists both with the efficiency of disposing with the bad, but will also assist with improvement. It will assist with improvement of any page to encourage the author to focus on the existence of one reliable source.  BLPPROD motivates with a deletion deadline the addition of one reliable source.  A page is much more easily improved if it has a source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just draftspace. There are a number of BLP issues within Category:Userspace drafts from long ago. I think what is needed is a better definition at deletion policy overall. For articles, Notability has definitions. There seems to be a mix of "resubmitting too much" and "there is no hope" here. It may be better to draft it as presumed to be useful and deletion not needed if (1) there is a single reliable source which indicates notability AND (2) there is no drama with the submission process or whatever. (2) needs work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Ricky. Given the response at WT:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, I suggest nominating every unsourced userspace or draftspace BLP.  In userspace, take care to not nominate the page if is the user's autobiography.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Considerations for Dealing with drafts that are not (yet )satisfactory
(This is an outline: I will give a fuller explanation of the considerations as soon as I can, possibly here, possibly on a separate page in WP or user space.) in process--should be readable by 24:00 Dec 8 (temporary pause here)  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The primary purpose of the AfC process and Draft space is to help new users write satisfactory articles.  (there are also secondary purposes: mainly  helping keep unsatisfactory articles out of the encyclopedia ; but also helping editors who insist on using ip addresses; screening articles by a few established editors who prefer or are required to use this process ; providing a workable forum for discussing new articles. )
 * 2) The goal is to get all potentially satisfactory articles good enough to stay in main space, and to remove all those which are never going to be satisfactory.
 * 3) By "satisfactory" is not merely meant an article that won't be subject to speedy deletion, or an article that will be immediately challenged at AfD and might possibly be kept. What is meant is rather an article that will be good enough that it is  not likely to be  even challenged  in good faith at afd -- or if it should happen to be challenged, can easily be  defended.  Thus, the key measure is not likelihood of n accepted article being eventually kept, but  the likelihood of an accepted article kept without challenge   There are
 * 4) There are secondary measures, most more difficult to determine:
 * 5)  the proportion of unimprovable articles not merely being eventually removed from WP, but never getting into mainspace.
 * 6) the number of improvable articles not lost because of failure to improve them
 * 7) the number of potentially productive users who continue working in WP
 * 8) the number of promotional or other unconstructive editors who no longer attempt to put advertising or improper material  in WP

Uploading new articles
So I have been trying to collect research so I can upload more contemporary articles on notability public figures. Someone in particular is Lisa Lopane. I noticed she does now have a Wikipedia but has a profound appearance online specifically google. Can someone help correct this issue? So far I have created her article I am in hopes is correct Anonymoussnowman1973 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, read WP:Your first article, WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people), and WP:NMUSIC. Those will tell you if this person is "notable" as Wikipedia defines it. MOST people, including MANY public figures and probably MOST musical artists, are NOT "notable" as Wikipedia defines it.  If a person is NOT "notable" then don't waste time writing about that person, as any draft article will be declined and any actual article will almost certainly be deleted.  I did do a "Google" search and the first 20 results were mostly publicity pages, which don't count for anything when assessing "notability" as Wikipedia defines it.
 * Consider writing about people whose careers have been over with for a generation or more. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  17:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Anonymoussnowman1973, it is hard, to foolhardy, to pick a semi-random person, and then to set a goal to write a Wikipedia article on her. If the person is not Wikipedia-Notable, no amount of your effort will be good enough. Looking at your example, you have found two sources, but they are not good enough to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability, because they are not independent of the subject, but are too connected to her. They also say very little about her. I recommend that you, as a newcomer, take a different approach. Edit existing articles. Edit around your interest. If your interest is Lisa Lopane, then edit articles that could possibly mention her, and where appropriate, add mentions of her.  If your topic of interest can be given no mention in any existing article, then her article would be a WP:Orphan, which is implausible for a notable subject. Edit and improve existing articles before attempting to write new articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to add link to requested redirects from the "this page does not exist" message
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:No article text § Protected edit request on 13 December 2020. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Creating that request also made me realize there's a lot of room for improvement to the WP:Requested redirects and WP:Requested categories systems (for one, they shouldn't go to the same page). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Files for upload wizard needs improvements
WP:Files for upload currently begins by asking whether or not you are autoconfirmed. New users typically aren't going to know whether or not they're autoconfirmed, which creates confusion, and asking them shouldn't even be necessary. Just use If autoconfirmed to show different content based on whether or not they're autoconfirmed. Is anyone down to fix this? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've taken a stab at adding it to Files for upload/Wizard   Zoozaz1    talk   16:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , definitely looks like an improvement; thanks! If we want, we could probably go further (If IP can differentiate logged in unconfirmed vs. IP), but that'll be a fuller redesign than I have time for right now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

2 AFC script feature suggestions
Suggested feature #1: Page-name/DAB check: If the page name has 's in it, alert reviewers to the current or past existence of the "base" name AND the "... (disambiguation)" name in both article- and draft-space.

This will give us a hint to MOVE the article either before or after acceptance and check to see if there is a disambiguation page (with or without a "... (disambiguation)" name) that needs updating. It will also give us a hint to check for black-hat editors who are trying to avoid scrutiny by picking a different name.

Suggested feature #2: Redlink check: During acceptance, check for incoming redirects to the target from other articles. If there are, give reviewers a chance to cancel or put the page "under review" so the incoming links can be checked for relevance.

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  15:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Two more suggestions based on this:
 * Remove draft/draft article templates upon acceptance similar to removing the AFC submission template.
 * Remove Draft categories templates along with the colons in categories using the WP:COLON trick. Sometimes drafts will use that template instead of the colon trick.
 * -2pou (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to welcome a naive editor
Can someone who is especially good with younger editors help out the author of Draft:Cary Egg Heads. I've already said something about the author's sandbox on his talk page (it's an early version of that draft), so it would be better if someone else gently showed him what Wikipedia is - and is not - for. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)  Note:  I am assuming this person is a "younger editor" based only on the topic of his contributions, I have no clue what the editor's real age is, nor do I care to know. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating an unsubmitted draft banner
I propose a new option on the Submit menu so that Submit as = Draft would add an unsubmitted draft banner. I often find drafts where the creator has not entered a submit button, and I need to go to Template:Submit to copy the correct code. —teb728 t c 07:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You do know you can just put AFC submission/draft, right? I guess I'm not sure what you're asking. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC) (edit: are you saying that you'd like that on the AFCH script?)
 * I'm likewise unsure what precisely the proposal is, but I agree with the proposer that people making drafts they don't submit is a big problem. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...is a big problem. Might I ask why? Primefac (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , we get new users at the Teahouse all the time who are like "I created my draft four months ago and have been patiently waiting; when will you all review it?" and we have to tell them they never submitted it because the "submit" button got lost or was never added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, user error, at least that gives us somewhere to start. Of course, making a script modification doesn't help these folks, and the last discussion we had about automatically adding draft tags to every draft was rather soundly rejected, so what can we do to help these people submit their drafts properly the first time 'round? Primefac (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the AFCH script, if I select for example Submit > Submit as Someone else, it enters (or whatever the code is).
 * I am proposing that if I select Submit > Submit as Draft (a new option), it should enter (or whatever the code is) without having to visit Template:Submit to remind myself yet again what the code is. —teb728 t c 21:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I guess the question is... why? I'm not trying to be an arse about this, genuinely wondering. Why do we need to be able to add draft tags via the script? Primefac (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not teb728, but I feel his pain. There are times when someone obviously wants to submit a draft but doesn't know how.  I typically so as teb728 does - I go to Template:submit to read what I should type in.  One of these days I'll have it memorized.  It would be convenient to have it as part of the script but if the script-maintainer(s) have higher priority things - like enjoying Christmas 🎄 - that's okay.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  23:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess this is where I get confused, and maybe it's because I have it memorized, but putting AFC submission/draft doesn't seem that difficult to remember to me. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: instead of any automatic munging of article contents, why not have it be that if any draft is edited that does not belong to a relevant category, a text appears suggesting AFC submission/draft be included? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, seen suggestion below, will participate there. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternative to adding "draft banner" to AFCH tool - use editnotice
Modify Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Draft to sense if the page already has an AFC submission template on it.

If it doesn't, provide a message to the user, something along the lines of:

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  00:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Is there an easy way to do the detection part of it? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy to code, yes, a noticeable hit on performance, probably yes as well. I've cobbled together something that searches the draft page for the phrase  .  As you can imagine, doing this each and every time a page is edited might put a load on the server.  You can see this in action   by editing Draft:AFC-editnotice-testing.  If you save it WITH the magic phrase   present, then the next time you edit, you won't see anything different.  If you save it WITHOUT that magic phrase, then you see something similar to what is above.  The actual edit notice is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Draft:AFC-editnotice-testing.  The magic happens in the first line, which wraps around the editnotice call:
 * While the code is easy to maintain, if the performance hit is as bad as I think it will be, this will be a noticeable load on the server. Not for each page, but given the number of times a day a non-brand-new draft is opened for editing, it will be noticeable in aggregate. There may also be a hit for very large drafts if the magic words are missing or aren't found until the end of the page. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  02:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I found another way: Crib off the code in Module:AfC_submission_catcheck.  However, it uses , which is presumably about the same load on the server as  . davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  04:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible and cheaper to test for membership for one of the fixed number of relevant categories that AfC articles are supposed to have? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out how, besides parsing the page like Module:AfC_submission_catcheck looking for "Category:...". If you know a way, please speak up.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  14:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to make the really dumb suggestion, but why not put that ombox on the edit notice, full stop? It saves on the server load and gives us plausible deniability when people are dumb about not being able to submit. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought about that. I expect we will wind up with pages with more than one submission template.  We can try it and see what happens though.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought about that. I expect we will wind up with pages with more than one submission template.  We can try it and see what happens though.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

GENFIXes
Could the AfC helper script apply WP:GENFIX fixes when a draft is accepted? I recently accepted a page with punctuation after the references, and it'd be easier if that was fixed as part of the "cleaning up accepted submission" than if the author or NPP reviewer has to do it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not without a fairly massive increase in overhead. Primefac (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a regex that theoretically does that in cleanUp. I guess it didn't work in that case (or doesn't work at all)? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , is there somewhere besides here where we should report that issue? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I clearly have a bit of a backlog over there; if anyone knows any JavaScript developers who'd like to work on a very high-impact tool let me know. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome; thanks! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Un-involved review under GNG criteria
Hi.

I was hoping an un-involved editor might be willing to review these sources and please let me know if I qualify for a page under the GNG criteria.

My page was rejected twice at AfC, but the first editor said they did not have time to review the sources and the second used their own criteria (rather than GNG).

If anyone has a few minutes to review these sources against the GNG criteria and provide their impartial opinion, I would be very thankful. I plainly do not qualify for a presumption of notability under WP:POLITICIAN, but that policy states I can still be judged under the ordinary GNG criteria. With sincere thanks. Evan Falchuk (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, . I would not find you notable under GNG based on the strength of the sources at Draft:Evan Falchuk (some of which you've listed above). In particular, I don't see any post-2015 sources which are non-routine (routine descriptions of political activity are in some way not "significant" in terms of the GNG criterion), so the 2015 Articles for Deletion result looks pretty similar to what I'd expect were this page recreated and nominated for deletion today.
 * Tablet is the best source IMO but you'd need another couple of sources of this depth that are not local to Boston to satisfy me of GNG.
 * I think the "routine" comment I make is the same thing that refers to in the part of the comment you can show that you have received such an unusually large volume of nationalizing coverage, far beyond what every candidate in every election can always show, that you would have a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates. I see that it may appear to you that Bearcat "used their own criteria (rather than GNG)" but it does appear to me that Bearcat considered GNG carefully in their comments.
 * I understand many figures find it frustrating to have a Wikipedia page for several months and then have it deleted and them told that they are not notable—it is natural to assume that the deletion is the mistake when it is often the creation that is the mistake. Hopefully you appreciate that Wikipedia is of such a large scale that it is inordinately difficult for the small number of very active and experienced volunteers to maintain uniform quality and consistency in enforcing our guidelines... without even taking into account that we will often disagree over such matters and it takes a few of us to get to a firm decision. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agreed that I would not review the draft again, but I will ask User:Evan Falchuk two questions. They may be annoyingly direct, but I think that Falchuk is being annoyingly direct with us in campaigning for us to review and accept his autobiography.  First, what does he think will be the value to him of having a neutrally worded biography in Wikipedia?  (I am aware that there is potential value in having a non-neutral biography, but neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia.)  Second, since the [[WP:AUTOBIO|autobiography policy states that submitting an autobiography to Wikipedia is not recommended for several reasons, why does Evan Falchuk think that his is the exceptional case?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Robert McClenon. Thank you for the follow up. I have a great deal of respect for Wikipedia and the community of editors who make it into the remarkable resource that it is. I thought that an error had been made back in 2015 by people working for me in their effort to make a submission and I thought that after five years it might be ok to see if that could be fixed. I apologize for being direct about it, and I did not mean to come off as “campaigning.” In this case, I made the submission and it was suggested that I seek a review from someone willing to review the supporting articles, which I proceeded to do. I am very appreciative of User:Bilorv for the work put in and for the thoughtful comments. I admire and respect Wikipedia, thought an error had been made on my behalf, and wanted to fix it. Evan Falchuk (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

AfC stats?
Hello, AfC,

I was wondering if there is any collection of statistics regarding article submissions on Wikipedia. Since mid-September, I've been dealing with G13s, stale drafts (drafts with no editing activity for 6 months or longer and considered abandoned). There are daily lists of eligible drafts and for the months of March, April & May, they typically numbered around 225-300+ drafts every day. Now, in the mid-June period, they are averaging at 140-200 drafts per day. I was just wondering if there are typically fewer submissions during summer months (for the Northern hemisphere) than during other months of the year.

Or, if there aren't any existing stats on this, maybe long-time AfC project members can tell me if there are typically busier times for reviewers when submissions pile up vs. slower times of the year. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Historically (and I say that as "until 2019 when I stopped collecting data") we were pretty consistent at having about 260±30 submissions per day, regardless of the time of year, though I wouldn't be surprised if over the summer this year there was a bit of a decrease (since folks could actually go outside more). Primefac (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty consistent with what I saw in autumn. I wonder if it's known what % of drafts are accepted out of all daily submissions. After what I've been seeing, it can't be that high of a number. For experienced editors, I'm sure the % is high but since I'm dealing with abandoned drafts, many are the only edits done by new editors so it's unlikely they would write an acceptable draft on the first try. But then, I'm seeing some drafts that are blank pages or are just one sentence long. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultras
I have written an essay about a class of editors who are usually single-purpose accounts who edit in good faith, but are enthusiastic about or committed to a subject area to the point where they annoy the reviewers. These are ultras, because they resemble the extreme fans of association football teams who follow the team and set off flares and smoke bombs, and sometimes get into fist fights, but mean well. Ultra editors are sometimes mistaken for paid editors because of their persistence, and their tendency to ignore notability and neutrality. But they are not conflict of interest editors. They are just fanatics. The areas in which they edit include association football (of course), other sports, film (certain studios, directors, and actors), and a few other topics.

Sometimes they overlap with nationalistic editors, but nationalistic editors are even more troublesome, and sometimes have to be banned at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen these editors in football articles but I don't edit sports pages. But I have seen them editing articles on anime, children's shows, Disney and lots of musical groups/artists. They usually edit existing articles though unless they try to write episode articles or ones for new recordings. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there are at least two distinct sock-farms that specialize in children's television. One that seems to favor Quebec-related television and Canada-related children's television just got identified this week.  There is at least one other that's been known for awhile now that seems to specialize in American children's TV. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  23:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging on mobile
WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags does not appear to work on mobile, and worse, it doesn't give you any error message, just does nothing when you tap the add tags button. Can we fix this? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the same underlying issue as here on the VPT. It uses  which isn't supported in mobile right now and doesn't seem trivial to add. —  Earwig   talk  23:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , ugh. I just implemented a very hacky stopgap, but we should do something better once we can. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could link User:Ahecht/Scripts/draft-sorter.js from that page? Seems similar. Edit: Ah, I see how this is linked from the submission template. Probably not a good idea in that case, then. (Looks good, by the way. Sorry about missing the code review ping.) Enterprisey (talk!) 09:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Neil Berry (lawyer)
This one was a different sort of hopeless draft. The footnotes are not references at all, but simply contain notes. The submitter doesn't even seem to have been trying to put in proper references. I had to reject this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable course of action. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Look what I've done!
I just cleared Category:AfC pending submissions by age/19 days ago. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! Primefac (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (And thanks for accepting my request for AfC reviewer as well) 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  14:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Drafts That Improve on Existing Articles
Sometimes I see drafts that improve on existing articles, that were created by copying the existing article and editing it, and then submitting the draft to AFC. This reflects a reasonable but incorrect concept of how AFC can be used. These drafts should be declined with 'exists', but the editor should be encouraged either to edit the article boldly or to discuss the improvements to the article on the article talk page. My first question is whether there is any additional advice as to how to deal with these drafts. I have a specific question that I already asked at the Education Noticeboard, because I encountered a group of drafts that would expand existing articles on genera of plants. The articles were edited by new editors, who had not previously edited, and often two or three editors worked on two or three of these drafts. This is almost certainly a class project. I asked if anyone knew who the instructor was. No one at ENB knows. They agree that submitting these drafts to improve articles is a plausible good-faith error, and that is why I think that the instructor may be mistaken. Does anyone have any additional comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:Article Wizard should encourage editing the mainspace parent article before encouraging the stating of a new draft. The mistake above results from faithfully following the instructions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP Education people have influence only over those courses that choose to engage with the program. If they're notified of a course they don't know of, they'll try to contact the instructor, but most of the time, this can';t be figured out, at least not in time. There has from the very start been a problem with timing, because almost all courses have submitted their articles at the very last minute--as is inevitable with student work as I am sure all of us know only too well from our own memories.  The entire AfC process is therefore unsatisfactory for courses, and even with submission into mainspace, there's no time left for the students to fix problems--even assuming the students are still around WP to fix them. There's no solution except to do the best we can with the results ourselves.  DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are also times where someone doesn't realize an article exists, because it exists under a different page title. I "declined - exists"'ed Draft:Itikal Al-Tai earlier today. As far as I can tell was a direct translation of a non-English-Wikipedia article, but the Draft: pagename used a different transliteration of the subject's name.  I'm guessing the author didn't know how to use the WikiData language-links to see that there was already an en-wiki version at Aatqall Taúaa.  The irony is that the translation looked a lot more solid than the existing en-wiki page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  04:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When declining because an article already exists. I usually leave a note on the talk page of the existing article with a link to the draft. More experienced editors may have more success merging the material than a new author. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Is really (G)I-dle only 5/6 notable ?
(G)I-dle (여자)아이들 is a Korean multinational girl group formed in 2018. From the beginning, the group consisted of six members: Miyeon, Minnie, Soojin, Soyeon, Yuqi, and Shuhua.
 * 29 October 2018‎ User:Katietran 	    created Cho Mi-yeon
 * 14 October 2019‎ User:Perghhh 	    created Minnie (singer)
 * 08 November 2020‎ User:Selenacabello97i created Soojin (singer)
 * 15 April   2017‎ User:Lovecore  	    created Jeon So-yeon
 * 19 August  2018‎ User:VirtuousVirtuoso created Song Yuqi
 * 24 December 2020‎ User:Justin03 was sufficiently naive to submit her Draft:Yeh Shuhua to the Article for Cancellation process. As usual, this was a bad move from the author. Instead of guessing if the article would survive to publication + AfD, some proud revizors are asking if selling so many albums is really a criterion of notability.


 * Indeed, User:Justin03 should have read the policy and applied what is said there: Once you have had an account for about 4 days and have made at least 10 edits, you will be allowed to start new articles, rename pages, or upload images. Therefore, except when a COI exists, the genuine process is (1) register, (2) make some gnomish edits to football.porn.whatever articles, there are ever blank spaces to add or to remove. (3) Wait four full days. (4) Publish your article. And you are done.
 * It would be surprising to see the AfC warriors go so far as to submit all these six articles to the AfD, but this would be a great occasion to sing Oh My God ((G)I-dle song), a song that was conceptualized around the theme of 'self-trust' when encountering reality and experiencing feelings of rejection, confusion, recognition, and dignity. It is an urban hip hop track in which the stark differences in rhythm that correspond to the atmospheric changes within the song stand out. The fantasy-like mood and bold production are led by a vintage piano sound and strong 808 bass (as said by the famous not-a-source encyclopedia).Pldx1 (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've also had obviously notable drafts declined. Sometimes reviewers even acknowledge notability in their decline messages. The justification for this behavior is that AfC reviewers are not charged with finding evidence of notability; That is the author's job. AfC's overarching directive is to accept drafts that are unlikely to be deleted. To nominate an article for deletion, editors are required to do a WP:BEFORE search. There is no such requirement for declining drafts. ~Kvng (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry I just need some help with the article. Sorry to bother all of you. Can one of you come to my draft"s talk page as I have something to ask there please? Really really sorry for causing troubles. Justin03 (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Cinque Vette Park, Lombardy
Hello, AFC,

I was asked to review this draft by a student in a class that are facing a deadline next week. It was submitted at the end of November and is in line to be evaluated but I was hoping this post might get a reviewer's attention and someone could review it in the few days. I've never reviewed a draft for its suitability for the project so I think it would be best reviewed by an experienced reviewer. It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am obviously not going to prohibit someone from reviewing this draft, but most reviewers I know don't do "reviews on demand", especially when it's for a course that mandates someone gets a draft approved before a course is complete. That's not to say I necessarily want them to fail, but a) they shouldn't be taking a course that mandates a draft be approved, and b) they should have looked at the process and recognized what sort of wait times that are part of the process (we've been over 2 months since October). Primefac (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ very nice work and turns half a dozen redlinks blue. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had begun a bit of cleanup on the new article but noticed that the section is a close paraphrase of the reference provided as translated by Google Chrome, including the major grammatical errors. It was enough to get me to spot-check a few other history subsections, but thus far I haven't found any additional copyvios. It might be worth sending this to WP:CP for a more thorough check.   C Thomas3   (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the students had just submitted their draft at the last minute, I wouldn't have post this request but since it had been a month, I thought it was worth a shot. I won't do this again but I'm grateful for those who responded to the request. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

August
I cleared out all of August from 3 months except for Draft:Charles Frederick Hall, which my eyes and brain cannot deal with right now. If someone could tackle that I would love to wake up to September being the oldest draft (which is still too close to 4mo for comfort, but we're closer to 200 than we were this morning). Primefac (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Primefac (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Help needed on unclear situation with two draft creators
Hi all, I have an odd situation with two editors who I suspect are actually one editor but I'm not sure how to check/investigate this. I declined two drafts recently: Draft:Tiffany Reisz created by Kentuckian in NY, and Janire Nájera, created by Sancholll. Kentuckian in NY noticed that Sancholll's draft had also been declined and left a note on Sancholll's talk page that they saw S's query on my talk page and removed it. However, the query on my talk page by Sancholll was removed by Sancholll, not Kentuckian. This leads me to suspect that the two user accounts are being run by one person. Any thoughts appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You should start a WP:SPI case on them. A checkuser will take care of it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look at your Talk page, SanchoIII's talk page, and some histories, and I don't think there is any sockpuppetry going on. Especially considering the discussion  started on SanchoIII's talk page here: Special:PermanentLink/997089652.  It would be odd to start a discussion like this on your own sock's Talk page, but I suppose it could be some kind of diversionary tactic... seems pretty elaborate, though.  Part of your question in the linked discussion was Kentuckian says that he/she noticed SanchoIII's comment on my talk page and deleted it. Something's not right here??  I think you misunderstoond Kentuckian's comment.  When stating Hi. I saw your post on MurielMary's talk page asking why she didn't consider Washington Post, etc to be reliable enough of sources for Wikipedia and deleted your entry accordingly., Kentuckian is saying that you, MurielMary, deleted SanchoIII's article for reliability (I think meaning that you declined it, not deleted it.)  I could see misinterpreting that with a quick read as "I saw your comment, and I deleted the entry" but that is not what is being said.  It looks to me like this is just two new editors trying to learn what Wikipedia notability requirements really mean, and trying to collaborate in a positive manner—nothing nefarious. -2pou (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, many thanks! Your interpretation of Kentuckian's comment could well explain the situation! I hadn't read it like that at all but it's definitely possible and would explain things. Much appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)