• This page is for reviewers to ask for a second opinion about specific AfC reviews. Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your article submission, use the AfC Help desk. Please see the Reviewer FAQ for commonly-asked questions.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Wikipedia help desk.
  • For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • You may create an article at the Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.

Articles for creation Project‑class

This redirect is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages Project This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Articles for Creation (search) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Reviewer help 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Helper script 2013–2014 2014–2018 Participants 2015–2017 2017–2018 Old AFCH requests v t e

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

On article acceptance the note posted to the user's talk page says: "note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request". With WP:ACTRIAL I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they've managed to get a draft accepted through AFC, then chances are they're autoconfirmed by that point and should be able to create pages directly in the mainspace. (also, for reference, the template is Template:AfC talk. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed the template. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little wordy, but if no one complains... Primefac (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please look at Draft:Jarion Henry? It has no references, and the dates cannot possibly be correct. Is it just completely wrong, or is wrong in the sense of being a hoax? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarion Henry exists, but the only coverage I can find is routine match coverage giving "Henry scored 15" etc, and a small amount when he was traded to the Storm. Definitely doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS, and I've trimmed out everything I can't find. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac - In that case, either the dates or the timeline is wrong. It says he was born in 2002 and was in high school later in the same decade. If it isn't a hoax, then it has errors (as well as a notability issue). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It said 1992 when I first saw it, so clearly it was changed. Can't source it anyway so I've removed it. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This issue arises often enough that I think it is worth raising here for the comments of other reviewers. Sometimes when a draft is submitted, the AFC script shows that the title has been deleted one or more times in the past. Often the deletion was A7 or G11, and in those cases the fact of a previous deletion doesn't matter, because the relevant issue is the content of the current draft, and besides A7 doesn't apply to drafts. If the draft doesn't establish notability, and it usually doesn't, the proper action is simply to decline the draft based on a notability criterion and provide a brief comment. However, my question has to do with the situation where the draft was deleted following a deletion discussion. Articles for Creation is a mechanism for the review of drafts, not a mechanism to bypass the judgment of the community or to game the system. I will provide my own thinking and welcome any comments that agree, partly agree, or disagree. Since I normally haven't seen the deleted article, and cannot view it because I am not an administrator, I don't know whether the new draft is substantially the same as the deleted article. So I not only don't know whether the new draft will pass another AFD with the same participants, but I don't know whether the new draft is eligible for G4 speedy deletion. I generally don't think that I should simply accept the draft. My usual approach has been to ask the submitter to have the deleted article restored to user space or draft space via a Request for Undeletion so that I can compare. I know that some submitters resent this approach and say that the community was wrong in deleting the previous article, and that their draft should just be accepted. (First, if the closer was wrong, take it to Deletion Review. Second, if the community was wrong, maybe they will do another wrong deletion.) So what do other reviewers think should be done in this special situation where an article has previously been deleted via Articles for Deletion? Should I ask to have the deleted article restored in draft space? Should I simply tag the new draft as G4 and say that it is their problem? Should I simply use whatever judgment I would use in an AFD, or in an AFC with no history? Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I had the bit (and even now, most of the time) I evaluate the draft based on what the AFD made their argument against. Examples:

If they said "clearly not notable, only two crappy sources" and there are 4-5 RS in the draft, then I consider the issue addressed.

If it was "this is entirely promotional, and nothing worth saving" and the draft isn't overly promotional, then I consider the issue addressed.

If it's a borderline case, I suppose you could ask to see the original (as we did with that one taking up my talk page), but I think if it's managed to get through AFC without any major issues, it should be acceptable. If it gets re-AFD'd, it gets re-AFD'd. It's not the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ragnarok really is TEOTW. Armageddon really is TEOTW. Global thermonuclear war isn't TEOTW, but it is TEOTWAWKI. An AFD isn't the end of the world. 2038 doomsday isn't the end of the world, only the end of some Unix, and there is plenty of time to expand that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask a somewhat general question, about when a reviewer should tag a draft for speedy deletion. Two obvious cases are G5 and A7. G5 is obvious, to me, because AFC has never been a mechanism for end-runs by sockpuppets. G5 applies to the (blocked or banned) author, not the topic as such. Anything that would be G5 in article space is G5 in draft space. A7 is obvious because it is obviously inapplicable to draft space, just as the other A criteria are inapplicable to draft space.

Also, I would say that G1 and G2 do not apply in draft space because tests are valid uses of sandboxes (although tests should not be submitted to AFC). G10 should be used for attack pages (some of which are just really bad stupid juvenile humor), because attack pages have no place anywhere in Wikipedia.

My main question has to do with when G11 should be used to tag really spammy drafts. A lot of marginal drafts that would get G11 in article space can just be declined as reading like an advertisement. My own thinking is that I will tag a draft as G11 if it is written in the first person plural ("we"), but that is just my thinking (and drafts that I have tagged this way normally do get deleted as G11). Comments on G11 in draft space? Comments on other G taggings in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer not to tag G11 in the draft space, but from conversations with others, it seems to be a "letter of the law" as far as the actual G11 text goes, i.e. exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten (emphasis in original). From the G11's I've deleted, these include (as you say) things like "buy from us" or "we're the company that the industry trusts". Also, pages that are obviously copied from a sales catalogue or review. Indeed, if when removing the promotional text you remove everything except "Acme is a company" or "Joe Bloggs is a singer" then it would fall under G11 (similar to how a copyvio draft should really only be G12'd if there's nothing substantial remaining after the cv is dealt with).

As for the other "G" parameters, there's a rather large discussion happening at WT:CSD regarding that stuff; might be worth a read. Personally, I agree with your above thoughts, that G5, G10, G11, and G12 are really the only ones that should be used on Drafts. Occasionally G4 as well, if something was previously deleted at MFD. Primefac (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[W:G1] Patent Nonsense absolutely applies to Drafts submitted to AfC. Nonsense is nonsense and should be speedy deleted. I occasionally patrol the "Blank" declines and WP:G2 them. After a few days of no effort and no content any blank submission should be removed. No need to let them sit until G13, and when I find them at G13 I still G2 them so no REFUND. YMMV on G11 but Admin tolerance for promotion continues to drop. I G11 not just companies but musical acts, youtubers and other pages where there is obviously no notability and the page is just an effort to promote. I'd prefer to remove the hopeless sooner than later. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is by far the most common speedy I do, because spam is what it is, kill on sight is the way to deal with it. None of the A# can ever be used on drafts, because such flaws can (at least in theory) be fixed in draft before reaching mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if another reviewer could have a look at this. It appears very dubious. I've detailed my concerns on the article's Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to Australia's Got Talent (season 6) as an appropriate place to cover that topic. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. If it belongs anywhere, that's a much more suitable place. KJP1 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolmxl5 - The above seems rather odd and I'd appreciate a second opinion. I came across it in the Afc lists, and was rather surprised to see it had been moved to the mainspace. To me, it's very much an essay rather than an article. For a start, what region is it covering? If global, the sources are too limited. And if so, what is the purpose of the, rather random, mentions of New Zealand and Poland? The tone seems strange; "As we see a rise in gang and drug activity among other safety threats in our schools". To be frank, it doesn't seem anything like a comprehensive overview of the secondary sources on this, admittedly huge, subject. And the move to mainspace seems a little unconventional. I've pinged the editor involved. KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1, it’s not an article that I would attempt to write, that’s for sure! The move was a technical move - I completed a move on behalf of User:MatthewVanitas who was unable to move it himself as it required a page to be deleted. Matthew is an experienced Wikipedian who is active in the AfC lists and I assumed that he had reviewed and was publishing the draft article (that said, I would prefer a clearer reason such ‘Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission’ rather than the one that was given). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolmxl5 - Many thanks for getting back, and sorry for the delay in replying. You're quite right: I've seen Matthew many times at Afc and his contributions are first-rate. So, I shall go and ask him. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]