Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions Help desk Backlog drives
Welcome to the main Wikipedia Articles for Creation project talkpage
WPAFC talk pages: Main - AFC Helper script - Reviewer help
AfC submissions
Clearing out
132 pending submissions
Purge to update

Skip to the bottom
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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. WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Add moves to Article Wizard[edit]

Liz has a point above. Currently, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation nor Wikipedia:Article wizard mention how an active user here could submit an article to the AFC process (namely, to use {{AFC submission|T}} if it's not ready for submission or {{subst:submit}} to submit it). There's over 49k articles within Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard so a lot of help can be done with just "adopting" old drafts and taking them to AFC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean superloading the backlog to 49k submissions? Face-surprise.svg FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
In a sense. I'm preparing it as a backlog drive for WP:ABANDONED DRAFTS rather than here (this place is active enough with the review and submission system, that seems to be better for people interested in finding and working on inactive drafts). Manual review of course, no mass tagging would make any sense here. I don't think there would be too much of an objection if reviewing that backlog and I find (a) a plausible draft (i.e. not complete U5 junk or MFDable nonsense or anything that could be Template:inactive userpage blanked) (b) where the editor hasn't been active for say 1 year [taking active user's drafts is just wrong] and (c) I 'adopt' that not by moving it to my userspace but donating it to draftspace with a new unsubmitted header and I or others can work on it. Looking at the time it takes me to review a draft, check if the topic hasn't already been created and if it's not the same editor who failed to history merge, history merge if needed (being an admin), cross-check the editor's history, decide whether a nudge to a current user is helpful or if MFD is needed or move it to draftspace, do some cleanup and formatting and possible work, all for the possibility of maybe 1/10 articles fit those criteria (probably even less in reality) so another 4500 or so at least decent drafts, we're clearly talking about a multi-month if not multi-year drive (especially since new drafts will always follow). It took me many months to cull the 1500 or so pages from Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 to the remaining two. Either way, the fact that it wasn't immediately clear to at least one person on how to add articles from another place to here means it's not something that's obvious. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea, but of the potentially hundreds/thousands of drafts that would result, where would we put them, and what would we do with them? I can expect to work on improving or accepting a few per week, but we couldn't possibly take on the drafts as creators ourselves for the indefinite future; I think this would be a reckless goal overall. What we could do is what we're currently doing, going little by little and rescuing as many as we can, which of course could be adapted towards a drive for fun's sake. Or perhaps this is what you're proposing already? Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's for fun's sake and to check on old pages. That project is basically dead at the moment so one more person helping would be pretty optimistic. At the very least, does anyone else think we should include some language on advising people who wish to donate drafts already created elsewhere to the AFC project (presuming that's something that is wanted)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's time we got to them. We've cleared up other large backlogs--the key point is not to be intimidated with the number, but just keep at it. I'll be glad to work on them a little. The first step I think will be an automated check for duplication. Rather than MfD, I suggest moving into Draft, and waiting six months for G13. If there's any question whether its applicable, this can be clarified at WT:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
(A) I'm working on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts but (B) as to whether the Article Wizard should include a mention of how to add drafts via moving them, should we include that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As to DGG's second suggestion, maybe a bot can work out the list itself (check each blue link on the page, read the bold or header) and print that next to it? Sorting out Category:Userspace drafts (the parent category), we're going back to drafts from 2004 with a lot in the 2008-2009 timeframe being basic copy-and-paste whenever an article was for up for deletion then (template:video game is used on those extensively). It's the same reason I have four "draft" versions of Spider Man 4 up at MFD, the article was made into a redirect and people desperately wanted to "save" it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User pages showing up at CAT:GFOO[edit]

Can someone figure out why User talk:Anthony Bradbury and User talk:JMHamo/Archive 9 shows up in CAT:GFOO? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

They were both transcluding Draft:Maryann Krieglstein. I've fixed them both.[1][2]Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC participants may be good administrators[edit]

AfC participants constantly evaluate draft articles. They have to be good at deciding what is viable, what is a copyvio, what should be deleted, etc. Well, that is exactly what administrators need to do a lot.

So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fast delete company articles?[edit]

I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time on articles about companies that will never make the cut -- basically, a lot of promo of small, insignificant companies. However, when declined they keep coming back, since they are motivated. Can we come to some consensus about PRODing these early on? I'm not an admin, or I'd probably just delete many of them out of frustration (maybe that's why it's best I'm not an admin). I'd much rather spend time on articles that have a chance and actually contribute something. So, what do others think? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

PROD fails in Draft: space (I think!). CSD works as does MFD. I think the existing consensus is that we each use god judgement and decide when to propose a deletion mechanism and which mechanism to propose.
I think we need to give ever better advice that will never make it as an article because it is unlikely ever to pass WP:CORP in our comments. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Timtrent. I realize now that this fits in with the discussion above on repeated re-submissions. I have given folks the DO NOT RESUBMIT WITHOUT MAKING CHANGES warning, but I have no idea how effective it has been. How plausible is it to add "Submission has not be sufficiently edited since last review" as a reason in the list, and perhaps "Topic unlikely to meet GNG" or something like that, with a couple of those on a draft being a clue to MFD it? I'd like to leave some visible and easy-to-find sign that a draft is coming back uselessly. Plus, I get tired typing this same message repeatedly. LaMona (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The thing to do is to have a set of standard phrases such as those at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which you modify to suit every occasion, and then to pretend that each draft you review is the only task you have done that day. Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I can type faster than I can pull up a page, copy, go back to page, paste. So I'd much rather have something right on the page. LaMona (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I've set up a few as keyboard macros. (I use the "text" system preferences panel in OSX, which is faster than any separate macro program I've tried, tho it doesn't do anything fancy) DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're using a Mac, TextExpander and the built-in OS X text shortcuts within System Preferences are super convenient. I've got about 7 or 8 form messages set up for reviewing drafts. Makes things a breeze. /wia /tlk 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations one and all[edit]

5,000,000 articles is a heady total and we, those who review and those who submit at AFC have helped hugely. Congratulations to all folk here and thank you for the hard work. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

G13 eligible AfC submissions issue[edit]

Why are there articles not tagged for G13 deletion in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, such as and many, many more.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems Hasteur's Bot has performed a null edit to eligible G13 articles and has removed the template, but they still appear in the eligible AfC submissions category. I guess they are still fine to G13 nominate? JMHamo (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a real problem. This version shows up in the category while the next edit does not. I think Hasteurbot is pulling the history to do the creator notification but is doing a null edit by accident there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
For the ELEVENTY BILLIONTH TIME in the past 5 days... there are multiple components to how the bot and templates work:
  1. The bot scans Category:AfC submissions by date and it's children to evaluate if there are any pages that are eligible for G13. If it finds one the bot performs a null edit so that the {{AFC submission/draft}} and {{AFC submission/declined}} templates will display the red warning banner that the page is eligible for deletion (but not nominate it) and to get the template to include the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category from inside the template.
  2. There is a difference between the pages being eligible for G13 and the pages being nominated for G13. The bot still waits 30 days from the notice date that the page is eligible for G13 before it goes about and nominates.
  3. The null edit is intentional so that the template parameters get re-evaluated. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See also User_talk:JohnCD#G13_cases Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was just wondering why they are showing up in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions without a red warning banner. So there is no issue with nominating drafts older than six months old already. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: The pages are eligible for G13 right now, however the bot is procedurally obligated to wait 30 days in case the user talk message does spur the user to come back and edit their draft (best case). While it's perfectly fine for human editors to go ahead and start nominating from the eligible category, it was my understanding, that these pages weren't really hurting anything and letting them last the 30 days until the bot comes through and cleans them up won't hurt much in the grand scheme of things and therefore there was a suggestion that human editors not perform the nominations themselves as the bot has a very good track record in following the (6 months + 30 days minimum) rule. Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how are humans supposed to nominate them from Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions if pages don't show up there? I'm confused on implementation here. Are pages only going into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions after seven months? I don't think it's manual move (via the bot)? was last edited on April 8th making it eligible on October 8th. Will it only go into the G13 eligible category on November 8th? Either way, since this comes up so much, we should just ask it as a common question to the top of this talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the real answer is that the Bot messed up (but we'll live)... I've never seen Drafts that are G13 eligible have the red warning banner removed when they were already included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions It's very messy... JMHamo (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Question for @Hasteur: in good faith. Could the 985 Drafts included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that will not be nominated for G13 for another six months by your Bot be moved to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, where they should really be? JMHamo (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: @JMHamo: How many times to I have to say it! THE BOT IS NOT BROKEN!!! Looking at the page RIGHT NOW you can see the "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13" in red inside the Submission declined template ({{AFC submission/declined}}). This means that right now either of you could apply the CSD:G13 nomination template ({{db-g13}}) to nominate it for deletion because the CSD:G13 qualification is valid right now. Per the bot's implentation rules, the bot notified the creator of the article on November 1st. At least 30 days after that notice, the bot will come back and see if the draft is still CSD:G13 eligible. If it is, then the bot will perform the CSD:G13 nomination. The AFC submission template pulls in the Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions category at 5 months unedited. and pulls in the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions at 6 months and includes the red bar notice at 6 months too. Before you go on to demonstrate even more ignorance, please go look at the related discussion recently at JohnCD's talk page, the Template source, and the Bot Requests for approval petitions 1/2. Hasteur (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I had a feeling you wouldn't answer the question, so I will repeat could the 985 946 Drafts included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions that will not be nominated for G13 for another six months by your Bot be moved to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, where they should really be? JMHamo (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: You have failed at comprehending the text multiple times... HOW many bloody times to I have to repeat the instructions. The 985 drafts included in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions will not be moved in 6 months because that's not the right place to put it.
  1. At 5 months unedited the template pulls in the Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions because that's the purpose of that category (to let those who might want to save the drafts time to work on them without the looming threat of CSD:G13).
  2. At 6 months unedited, the pages are eligible for CSD:G13 immediately.
  3. At 6 months, the bot will perform a null edit to the submission so that the AFC submission template will add the red "notice banner" and sneakily get the template to include the G13 eligible submissions category. At that same point the bot drops a friendly notice to the page creator that their draft is at risk of being nominated for deletion.
  4. At 6 months + 30 days if the draft is still eligible for G13, the bot performs the CSD:G13 nomination and delivers a notice to the page creator that the draft has been nominated for deletion.
At this point I invite any other editors besides you and Ricky81682 to opine on this because both of you have some radical minority viewpoint that is not supported by consensus and I am on the edge of saying things that will get me slapped around for civility. Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Hasteur: Why can't you answer a question without the passive aggression. Thank god you are not an Admin, you wouldn't be much good at editor retention. There are still unanswered questions but you will not be able to manage to answer them without being rude (or leaving snide edit summaries). There is obviously a reason as stated on your User page that you've been 'drug to the Administration Noticeboards 9 times'. JMHamo (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifically the code in the template looks like this
<includeonly>{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months }} < {{#time: U}}|<div style="text-align: center; background-color: #FCC; border: 1px solid #FAA; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; font-weight: bold;">This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per [[WP:G13|CSD G13]].</div>{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions|{{padleft:{{#expr:(({{#time:y|{{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}}*12)+{{REVISIONMONTH1}})}}|3|0}}]]}}}} {{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +5 months}} < {{#time: U}})and({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months}} > {{#time: U}})|{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions|{{padleft: {{#expr:(({{#time:y|{{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}})+{{REVISIONMONTH1}})}}|3|0}}]]}}}} </includeonly>
Now for the line by line playback:
If the most recent revision timestamp plus 6 months (as counted in Unix Epoch time) is less than the current timestamp (in unix epoch time), then Add the "This draft has not been edited in over six months" and include the G13 eligible submissions category and include a sorting parameter to it so that the most pages that are the most eligible are at the top of the list.
If the most recent revision timestamp plus 5 months (as counted in unix epoch time) is less than the curent timestamp (in unix epoch time) and the most recent revision timestamp plus 6 months (as counted in unix epoch time) is greater than the current timestamp (in unix epoch time) then apply the ""AfC G13 eligible soon submissions" category and use the sorting parameter to push the the ones that will transition into the 6 month category to the top of the list)
Hope this clears up your questions. Next time read the provided sources Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No actually, it does not answer my questions, but I am not going to bother any more as I've said you are just too passive aggressive and you suck the life out of me... I'd rather move on and let others suffer you. JMHamo (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You question has a false premise, the bot will not wait another 6 months. It will nominate for deletion in 1 month or less. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Double digits[edit]

I don't know who went on a spree, but nice job folks. A few weeks ago the backlog had crept back up to over 600. Congrats! Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder who does this every month or so... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed: great work from all the AFCers. Keep it up! —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It was indeed great work for the person or the group who went on a spree, but actually it was actually still triple digits today. I just 'helped' to make it double digits. =p But anyways, cheers! Vincent60030 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Gilles Gorriti[edit]

I commented on the submission and it now appears blank. Can anyone tell me what's going on? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: SuperMarioMan deleted page Draft:Gilles Gorriti (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement:; earliest version was a copy of Pablo Picasso missing attribution) JMHamo (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah...they must've done it while I was precisely checking for that on Earwig's tool; when I came back it was blank and since I hadn't refreshed the page it seems the script added the comment to a now-new page. Thanks! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've G6'd the new page as requested by JMHamo. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rami Rahim[edit]

The article is about the CEO of a $4.5+ billion company. He was recently interviewed in Fortune Magazine and in the technology press. There were several press articles about his appointment and plans with the company written by professional journalists.[3][4][5] I was a little surprised an article on the CEO of a large public company, that is based on quality, reliable sources, would be turned down as not notable, but I know our standards are changing, especially in regards to business topics. So I just thought I would double-check. @Guy Macon: actually suggested moving it to article-space months ago, but I felt it would be better to wait a little while, as more sources would inevitably come out a little later into his term as CEO. Happy to leave it in user space if there's not enough sources - was just surprised is all. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 22:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: This is my own viewpoint, but almost all the coverage is of him stepping into CEO because of the November 2014 issue to the point of being a WP:BLP1E issue. Being that we don't have a deadline to hit a press date, there's nothing wrong with leaving this in draft space until a second or third point independent of the CEO cutover happens. Also, for the readership here, would you care to explain Please note my COI disclosure in regards to his employer. Finally is it wise for a semi-retired editor with a questionable COI to be pushing this after it has been declined twice in the past few days? Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
In any case it's best he do so here. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I said something to a similar effect when it was raised originally, but more recent sources have been published now that are about Rahim and only briefly mention, or don't mention at all, the prior CEO and his controversial departure.[6][7][8] Thanks for taking a look. Didn't mean to upset anyone... David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello all,

If you find yourself regularly moving user drafts from userspace to the draft namespace, you might be interested to know that the script mentioned here is now finished. You can find the documentation at User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify. In one click, it allows you to move a user page to the draft namespace, tag it with {{subst:AFC draft}}, and notify the user of the page move. You can also optionally soft-block the user or inform them about changing their username if they have a username that looks like it represents a group or company. Try it out and let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It is very, very good and I highly recommend it and declare that Mr. Stradivarius is a very, very clever bunny! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! There's literally tens of thousands of pages out there and a few have actually gone live from all the moves. It'll help a ton! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant category at CFD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 8, where someone's added a deletion nomination for Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. The rationale is basically "I don't think this is being used anymore". I'm not familiar with it, and the same is probably true of most people not involved in this project, so opinions from people here would be quite helpful.

I see that "We have a please do not leave deletion notices on this page", but the "Article Alerts" section of WP:AFC appears to be about AFC-created articles, not project maintenance categories. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to notify people here. I think its used to be used but the consensus seems to be that draftspace does allow for pages without the AFC template so the category seems counter-productive and useless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice box keeps appearing when I sign in.[edit]

I have recently been getting this notice box, when I sign in. "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "EditorASC" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants."

I am not sure what it means or why I keep getting this notice. Can someone explain what it is all about? Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@EditorASC: Your Username is not listed in the list of Participants, deactivate the script in Preferences > Gadgets, or on your .js page. JMHamo (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


I need to create a page for — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@ You can request an article be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles or submit your own draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, however I must warn you it'll likely be rejected due to notability reasons. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Credible (website)[edit]

So this popped up as my random AFC site and the first thing I notice is the multiple declines and I see it was edited after the most recent decline, but with no addition. I am declining again, but what are we to do with stuff like this? Yossiea (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Even worse, the editor left this message at the bottom of the page (as the only edit since the last decline: "Again, the content lays out the facts about the Credible website. I think my initial versions of copyrighted material (which I had not known were copyright under the laws of Wikipedia until CultOfGreen helpfully sent documents to me), has caused a strong bias over getting this article submitted. I am re-submitting, and will continue to do so until it is accepted. Thank you." I think it's legit to leave a comment saying that 1) we are not biased 2) they are wasting our time re-submitting without making the necessary changes 3) continuing to re-submit does not guarantee that the article will be accepted because not all topics are suitable WP articles and 4) this is a final notice -- any more resubmits without substantial changes and the article will be proposed for deletion. LaMona (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a community AFC ban is appropriate? Do we even have something like that? Yossiea (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Else, take it to MFD. If they recreate the article, then it can be salted. I've seen older drafts where people do these kinds of things to get enough edits to post it directly on main and then move on. It's about the behavior, not the content so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD for Draft:Kenneth Mahood (not shown in AAlertBot list)[edit]

MfD for Draft:Kenneth Mahood needs comments from other AfC reviewers. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This happens when drafts aren't in the AFC WikiProject template on their talk page. There's a number of draft pages at MFD for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the non-notable decline reason[edit]

Back in March 2014, I proposed here that the declining statement for non-notable submissions should be adjusted to more firmly clarify that if no additional third-party, reliable sources can be found, it is likely that the topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time, and further editing might be futile. The proposed adjustment was something along the lines of:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If no reliable sources can be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

The proposal, I felt, had consensus to proceed with some form of change along these lines, but interest was lost and apparently this was never carried out. I feel that this is important for editor retention as well—nothing is more discouraging than spending hours drafting and continuing to submit something that can never be accepted, at least without additional real-life coverage. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm in an unstable connection and my lengthy reply just got deleted, but I think we need to ramp up the language for instances where the topic will never reach the notability threshold. We need firm yet flexible language, something along the lines of "No, we'll never accept this draft, but here's a guide on how to edit Wikipedia, we particularly need help with bla bla bla". At present, editors are freely resubmitting 3-8 drafts because the current wording encourages them to do so, given they think simply adding dozens of low-quality citations will move their submission along. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Treat the text I proposed as a starting point for further modification. The goal is to convey the message that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. And I hate it when that happens—losing your entire edit. Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I am content with individual reviewers and their use of comments. I use wording such as this:
"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."
It's formulaic, and seems to work better than not using it. If folk think it is worth adapting for use then please go ahead. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, I've observed quite a few reviewers here make comments clarifying this, which is certainly helpful. However, I've also observed reviews without the additional comment, and this leads to the editor devoting more time to a fruitless endeavor. Thus, I think it should be standardized across all non-notability declines. If I could make a small adjustment though—it is typically more helpful to expand wiki-shorthands (e.g. from WP:RS to "reliable sources") when communicating with newer editors. Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, Mz7. I'm not sure my own messages always get that point across. It would certainly be a welcome addition. /wia /tlk 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user[edit]

I recently CSDd Draft:The Lost Son (novel) for copyvio of The deletion was temporarily deactivated by DragonflySixtyseven, I assume because of requests from the submitter. The creating user has now been harassing me for the past week, after I repeatedly told them why that happened and what their options were. Is there some way of blocking them from my talk page? Thanks for your help, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think you could have handled it better. Yes, there are times when users get angry at us at AfC. But in your first reply to the person, you said: "Do not direct your ignorant claims at me." I would say that was a mistake. From then on, it became name-calling between you. It's hard to hear the anger of others, but the only way to meet it is to give good explanations of what has happened and why. Sometimes users can be really thick. I can, however, understand how someone who has worked hard on an article feels to find it blanked and gone! For copyright violations, what I've seen others do at AfC is to click on the "copyright violation" reason for rejecting the article. If you include an explanation of what site it is copied from, then you and the user can look at it. Given that we don't expect users at AfC to understand the rules (and that often enough they are copying something they themselves wrote because they don't understand COI), the AfC decline acts as a learning point. I'm not even sure that we are obliged to blank copyvios in draft articles -- someone else can speak to that. To de-fuse this, it might be best for the user to take the issue to the AfC help page or the TeaHouse, since the two of you have gotten off on the wrong foot. LaMona (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
If you read the decline template carefully (plus the proper talk page archive), it clearly states where the content was copied from, something which I repeated 5 times consecutively to the user. Also, the degree of harshness was simply responding to his initial aggressive rant posted in my talk page. I've diligently handed over all the explanations and guidance I possibly could, including referrals to the copyright problems talk page, as well as the AfC help desk, obviously providing the links. He/she was also provided with a stay on the article's deletion, after which he was shown how he could access the appropriate diff in order to copy the draft and continue working. However, he resorted to continue his ranting. I simply want them to desist. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@FoCuSandLeArN: You are entitled, should you wish, to express assertively to any editor the fact that they are prohibited from using your talk page. May I please counsel you against it at present? I urge a "walk quietly away from the editor trying not to disturb them" approach for the moment, and I suggest you simply ignore anything they place on your talk page or suggest as a reply that you are asking other editors to handle it.
I do not say this to suggest in any way you have any blame attached to you over this. You offered clarity of explanation, but they were unable to hear you. I say it simply to defuse the situation, and to allow it to become unimportant in your eyes. I've offered the editor my help (on their talk page) and they may accept it. Others have helped in their draft article. Sometimes it takes many different approaches to reach someone. All we can say with any certainty is that, this time, your approach has not reached them. Mine may not, either. If I fail I will not worry. Someone else will succeed, probably. I hope I do, or someone else does. Fiddle Faddle 23:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Tim. I won't interact with them any longer. I leave you with a mind-boggling idea: [9]. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I honestly tried to listen to the man in the video. But I failed. As I said, not everyone can reach everyone else. What a wonderful and unintentional example!
The trick with Wikipedia is to be able to walk away from , or to shed, silliness as though it were rainwater off duck feathers. If more folk walked away from silliness the drama boards would be increasingly empty. I have often wondered if Wikipedia is really about creating an encyclopaedia, or if that is a pleasant byproduct of a great social experiment. Who can say, now? Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been following this conversation with interest, hoping to learn a few things from other people's experiences, and I have been gladly surprised. I particularly appreciate (@Timtrent:) Fiddle Faddle's colloquy on WP metaphysics. I have wondered the same.Historiador (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming clearer on the editor's talk page. I'm not going to rehash it here. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I am now of no further use with this editor. Others are welcome to do better. I am taking my own advice. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of redirecting accepted drafts[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21 about Draft:Transactive Energy . There's a question there about what I think is our standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: It is our standard practice, and thus we leave a trail of redirects in Draft: space. My first question is whether this matters. My second is to wonder which venue os the correct one to discuss it. AFC does not "control" Draft: space, so it is (probably) not ours to rule on. Those looking at CSD may be the best venue.
The script also notifies the contributing editor about the success of the submission, so, presumably, the redirect loses all importance. The audit trail of attribution travels with the draft to the article, so we do not lose that. Thus, in my view, the redirect is not necessary, except perhaps for a couple of months for courtesy reasons.
I don't think RfD is necessarily the place to discuss it. So where do we take it? Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)