Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
1,875 pending submissions
Purge to update
Shortcut


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of January 20, 2025


Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD

[edit]

The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with Draft:Raegan Revord and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination), for example. GTrang (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? A draft like that should be declined as exists anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as just extra administration for no reason (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted. NatGertler, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Declined AfC submissions resubmitted without any changes is live!

[edit]

Per the outcome of this RfC, which is shown above, and a request filed at WP:BOTREQ by User:JJPMaster, the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by User:MolecularBot. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see Draft:M S Narasimha Murthy. :)

There's also a website I've made hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.

For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.

For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by Bunnypranav that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!)

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! Ca talk to me! 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic

[edit]

I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for "AI", "Gemini", "Copilot", and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this.

So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:

https://github.com/davidkitfriedman/general/blob/main/2025_01_02_dialog_with_Copilot_on_notability_of_GlobalProtect.md

I asked Copilot to argue against notability for GlobalPlatform, and then also to argue for notability.

Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.

Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?".

And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Wikipedia's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"

I could mention that I did see this mentioned in Wikipedia:Artificial Intelligence, so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.

When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they are, then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. Primefac (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Wikipedia requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM and Wikipedia don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Wikipedia things, but is not a great fit here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African legislators

[edit]

Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do ping me if need arise! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I could find (which was little more than this) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and maybe it gets reverted. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac Correct! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Wikipedia and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense :) qcne (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. C F A 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA Oh yes! I, in fact, disqualified one of the contestants for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft nominated for MFD as not notable after decline

[edit]

A draft BLP on a politician who does not meet political notability was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bashir Muhammad Hussari Galadanchi. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List

[edit]

is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, Wikipedia:AfC sorting, is already linked to by the header.

I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of Template:AfC statistics. Ca talk to me! 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't worked since at least 2022; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little merging issue

[edit]

Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)

So the old article was a redirection (Lahcen Ahansal). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (Draft:Lahcen Ahansal) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling Lacen Ahansal and then merge their histories.

Ok, histories are not merging. What am I missing ? Anthere (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac has done something like that cleared the issue. Cheers!Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done. For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done
  • Request a {{db-afc-move}} on the redirect (this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)
  • Request a page swap at WP:RM/TR
For an admin, the options are:
  • Pageswap the draft and article
  • Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title
Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page.
As a minor note, Special:MergeHistory is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
le sigh Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on.
A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm.
Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. Anthere (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) Primefac (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English drafts

[edit]

I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told afterwards that it was all for nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Wikipedia.
But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly opposed to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... Primefac (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. BD2412 T 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Often, when I decline a non English draft, I use machine translation to provide a message to the creating editor about it. I suppose it depends on how often it happens regrind a bot. I somehow doubt a bot is needed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft

[edit]

I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user[1], but the script actually notified Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: the submitting user changed the draft !ownership to Jimbo.
Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 United States Senate election in ...

[edit]

Heads up: we've got five of these so far (see e.g. Draft:2026 United States Senate election in Arkansas) and I suspect more are coming. I dunno if it's WP:TOOSOON or not, but they look similar enough they can likely be accepted or declined as a group. Rusalkii (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd decline all unless if there are secondary sources actually discussing the state-level senate elections. Ca talk to me! 11:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Clifford Prize

[edit]

Should I nominate this draft for speedy deletion? Earwig turns a 93% similarity rate, but I fear this might be a false positive. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a false positive. You can see what's triggering the high percentage by clicking the "Compare" buttons to the left. It's detecting the award recipient list, which you can't really paraphrase. Ca talk to me! 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always, always, always do a check to see if the % actually means deletion is required. I declined a G12 earlier today where the second half of the draft was copied verbatim (and thus threw a 95% match) but after removal it didn't show any matches other than the random phrases like facility names. While the number is lower today than it used to, there are still some trigger-happy admins who will nuke anything G12 with a high % match without actually checking, and that does no favours to the user who submitted the draft if it's a "false positive" (at least as far as G12 goes). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed)

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #401

Eg, trying to accept Draft:Callum_Reynolds gives:

Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. You will need to request unprotection before accepting.

Can we have the script modified to cover these cases? It should prompt to request the deleting admin unprotect, or prompt to submit a request to unprotect at WP:RFUP, or here at WT:AfC where User:Primefac reliably does it?

Reviewers should not be sending the problem straight to DRV. DRV is for addressing deletion process problems or overturning a bad decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to what User:SmokeyJoe says is wrong with the AFC script. The script did not say to go to DRV. The script said to request unprotection. If SmokeyJoe is recommending that the script provide more detailed instructions, then that is a good idea, but the current instruction is not wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment a reviewer posted on the draft “The author must take it to WP:DRV for review” was wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get picky, but JoJo did say in their AFD close that any new drafts would need DRV to be accepted. Is this a proclamation they're allowed to make? I don't know, but that is why the reviewer said it. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good nitpick. I hadn’t seen that. I presumed it was a general belief that DRV is generally required to reverse SALTing, as we see from time to time at DRV.
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus did say that in their close, in August 2017. I’m not wanting to try to solve this here, but the proclamation came from the closer, not the discussion, which is an issue. Also, time matters. I’ve seen elsewhere concerns about the huge number of protected pages, where most, but not all, never warranted permanent protection. I think JoJo’s proclamation should definitely be respected for six months, should probably be respected for two years, and after that I’m not sure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really argue with that; salting really is a slightly longer way of dealing with disruption, but I agree it shouldn't really ever be indef. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not personally sure myself, but my sense is that if a page keeps getting deleted at AfD, at some point folks need to challenge the AfD closes first (i.e DRV) before recreating yet again. That said, it's been eight years and I haven't worked in AfD for a long time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If y'all want to pick which of those actions you want AFCH to do, I can make a ticket for it. We should focus on one action. So the workflow might be something like "Darn it, "Callum Reynolds" is create-protected. Do you want AFCH to file a request for unprotection at WP:RFUP? [yes] [no]". Then the RFUP could be something like "I am an AFC reviewer and I would like to formally accept "Callum Reynolds" and move it to mainspace, but it is WP:SALTed. I would like to request unprotection. Please ping me with the outcome so I remember to move the draft. Thanks." –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest option I think is for AFCH to advise how to request unprotection.
It might be good for AFCH to offer a post a canned request, to the protecting admin, or to RFUP, or to here at WT:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It would be fairly trivial to add something along the lines of "at RFUP or WT:AFC" after "unprotection". Primefac (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a ticket with the "at RFUP or WT:AFC" addition. Let me know if anyone wants it adjusted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that it should say: "You will need to request unprotection from the protecting admin on their talk page or at WP:RFUP." So +admin -WT:AfC. I don't think that WT:AfC should be recommended because RFUP should work, and if it isn't working, we should see why it isn't, instead of bypassing the problem by directing requests here. —Alalch E. 15:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I mainly was parroting Joe's suggestion since my advice here (when someone asks about a salted page) is to just ping me, well, here, and I'll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the ticket to incorporate Alalch E's changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft when article already exists

[edit]

I just reviewed a draft that had been declined by two previous reviewers, both experienced editors, one of them an admin. On the one hand, I agreed that the draft, as submitted, did not establish biographical notability. However, there was already an article on the subject. My question is why is it apparently easy for editors not to notice that there already is an article? The question was not whether the draft should be accepted, which is not possible if there is already an article. The questions were whether the draft should be declined as exists' or for notability, and whether the draft should be tagged for merging into the article. There is a notice in the yellow banner saying that there is already an article. Should it be made more prominent, or should reviewers be reminded to pay attention to it?

I had been planning not to name the draft, because I want a general response, not focused only on the specific draft, but then I realized that some reviewers will do their homework and look at my contribution history and see that it was Draft:Caitlin McCarthy, and there already is an article on Caitlin McCarthy, and the article, unlike the draft, does establish acting notability. So that is the specific. The fact that there already was an article was apparently missed by two reviewers. Do we need to make it easier for the reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. That sort of answers that. They are two different people. In that case, my only complaint is that it would have been helpful if the reviewers who declined the draft had noticed that disambiguation might be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the general question you asked (because the specifics just boil down to "reviewers need to take their damn time when they're reviewing"), it probably depends on how much more useful content there is in the draft. If it's an improvement, then a merge decline is probably more appropriate than the exists decline, which is really just more for saying "hey, don't waste your time on this, work on the article." Hell, we have the option to have multiple decline reasons, so just use both if it's borderline.
I think the main reason we get duplicate submissions (based on a quick look through cats this and that) is disambiguation, whether a spelling difference or with parentheticals. I don't know how we can necessarily stop people from creating these pages, though. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Mala Nuri, Requesting Review

[edit]

Hello. It has been more than a month that I edited the last version and am waiting for response. If anyone could take a look and check it, it would be highly appreciated. Here is the link of the draft:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Zhewar_H._Ali/sandbox Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhewar H. Ali, please be patient; drafts are not reviewed in any particular order but it will be seen in due time. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The draft is again reviewed and edited with avoiding peacock terms, writing in a neutral tone and fixing inline citations. As for reliability of the sources I do not understand why they are not reliable. The sources are websites of organizations and presses, they may include no author names due to the lack of freedom of speech that reporters may receive threats on their lives if they show their names on the news and reports. Thanks for considering this. Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhewar H. Ali, if you would like help understanding a review, the best places to ask are WP:AFCHELP and WP:TEA. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP=yes, not living=yes

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #400
Resolved

Hi, there is currently a bot running to change the ~300000 articles that have living=yes to blp=yes. I just noticed that the AFC script creates living=yes if you tick that box. Can this please be changed to "blp=yes"? The-Pope (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's in progress. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Also noticed this. CNC (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=1270794211"