Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

4,425 pending submissions

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of June 08, 2026

Suggestion

Feel like something that'd be helpful for reviewers is if submitters were required to write a brief explanation of how their article meets notability requirements AND if there was a checklist they'd have to manually check the boxes that certifies they understand the most important aspects of notability/NPOV/COI etc. The checklist would provide links to each policy.

These should be written/presented as succinct as possible, so that it's basically only a minute of labor on part of submitter. Shouldn't be cumbersome. The explanation would appear to reviewer; this would help direct reviewer's attention to like e.g. the three pieces of SIGCOV that prove notability or like the proof that some academic meets NACADEMIC.

A lot of the time it's annoying for reviewers to dig through valid uses of primary sources or press releases etc to find the 3 pieces of SIGCOV that push an article over the line. If the submitter identified those for us it'd help somewhat. Also the presentation of a checklist and forcing people to write out/think about what notability is I think would help. grapesurgeon (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think notability is probably too complicated for this to work. Guidelines such as WP:GNG are too vague (compared to how it actually works). The various WP:SNGs are too specific, with very uncommon SNGs mixed in with common ones, adding a lot of noise. These two things make it hard to teach beginners how notability works, and hard to trust beginners to be able to accurately judge notability. Therefore, even if you make a checklist that has the item "My draft contains 3 sources with significant coverage", I think beginners would misjudge their sources more often than not, thus not really improving the situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I hold similar reservations about this plan (which in fairness, sounds like a good idea) based on my own past experience with WP:THREE. When asked for the best refs on IRC, helpees will invariably give me a half-dozen garbage sources. While it might not be difficult for the draft submitter to write up, reading an extra paragraph or two of pseudo-abstract and checking three potentially-not-useful references will likely just add to the review time. I would rather skim the draft and the sources and make a judgement based on that.

Conversely, this could potentially harm people who make a poor argument for what would otherwise be a well-written draft, because it might unduly influence the reviewer (especially if they assume that the three best really are the three best, even if they're not). Primefac (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

From time to time, I create a topic on the talk page called significant coverage and list the two or more pieces of sig cov that were the basis for the acceptance. I think it's a good practice in the event the sig cov is inadvertantly removed and the article is ever nominated for deletion but I don't know how widespread a practice this is. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Pocahontas tohmas davage donald savage

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous § Pocahontas tohmas davage donald savage

Not really relevant to here. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Best way to handle paste to article space?

Hi! I've seen several cases lately where an article is pending AFC review, but in the meantime has also been pasted into article space.

Example: Draft:2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Champions League squads and 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Champions League squads

What's the best way to handle these? I read Wikipedia:History merging based on searching for info about cut and paste moves, which was helpful for when a history merge should be used, but I'm not clear on whether these articles should be in article space or draft space, and how to delete the other copy.

In this particular example, the article was originally created in article space, then draftified, then copied back to article space (by the original editor). But I think in previous cases they were originally created in draft space. Not sure if that makes a difference. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Requesting a history merge is the best option for that, and adding a tag will handle that regard. As for whether or not it should be in article or draft space my view is that because AfC is optional, they are definitely allowed to move their draft to mainspace if they choose, and if we disagree then the next forum is AfD, not trying to force them back to draftspace. Cutpaste moves happen because they often just don't know about how to move a page, but that should still be taken as their intent to move it themselves. With the original draft you can either redirect it to the article or just wait for it to G13 itself. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 18:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This looks to be a WP:NOATT situation where a history merge would be unnecessary for attribution. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see they didn't copy previous declines over. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 19:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to answer in the general regarding copy/paste page moves, because it is a question that gets brought up a lot here, there are a few steps/things to consider:

• WP:DRAFTOBJECT means that if it's been moved into the draft space once, then it'll have to go to AFD the second time.
• If there is only one content editor (i.e. the declines etc didn't get copied over) a histmerge is not needed. Otherwise...
• Put a {{histmerge}} tag on the article so that the old revisions of the draft can be copied.
  • As a personal note regarding this point, I would rather decline a histmerge than not have one tagged, so if there is doubt or any questions by all means put the template on it.
• Note that if a histmerge is not necessary, the best practice is to redirect the draft to the article, at the very least so it's not duplicated again for some reason.

Primefac (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Side question: Is WP:DRAFTIFY an option after authors move or copy from draft to mainspace? I assume WP:DRAFTOBJECT is implied in this case because they clearly intended to do the move so there is [not] a reasonable expectation that [draftifying] is uncontroversial. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

After the first move, yes, because the move itself is considered a BOLD move and can be reverted. If it's not the first time the page has been moved, other avenues need to be taken. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the original question about the situation where there is a draft and an article with the same title? If so, the first question is whether they are by the same person. If so, I normally decline the draft as -exists- , and redirect the draft to the article. I don't always review whether the article should be in article space. If not, a New Page reviewer will nominate it for deletion. If they are by different people, but are the same or almost the same article, a history merge, as discussed above, is probably in order. Sometimes the draft and the article are different, and by different authors. In that case, they should be tagged for merging, but I can't find the option to tag two articles for merge. I think they have been moved or removed by Twinkle maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Flyingphoenixchips shouldn't be an AfC reviewer.

Flyingphoenixchips (t · c · xtools · reviews)

It's regretful for me to have to suggest that one of my colleagues in the AfC reviewing space should have their reviewing privilege revoked, but @Flyingphoenixchips' name keeps coming up in the context of poorly-explained or outright erroneous declines.

For a few initial examples, look at User talk:Flyingphoenixchips#AfC declines where a few issues with their declines were raised and they explained it as an issue with some kind of LLM-based speech-action agent called Wisperflow which they use.

Recently myself I've noticed examples such as Draft:Stanley L. Robbins where this user declined the draft due to lacking sources, even though it clearly does have sources, and now Draft:Kargil Democratic Alliance where they declined it because "Youtube is not a reliable source" which is simply not a valid decline reason; whether Youtube is a reliable source depends on where the video comes from.

I can empathise if some of this is due to the tools they're using causing them to mistakenly select the wrong decline notice once or twice; but the fact this keeps happening is a bad look for the AfC system, and I would suggest we should pull their reviewing privileges until such time as they have the tools they need to carry out reviews with the appropriate care. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This user is an NPR, so we cannot really do anything other than flag these issues up to potentially have their perm pulled. That being said, if the argument is made well enough here I can do that. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged is immediately substantiated because in just the past 24 hours, their declines have led to one user posting on the Teahouse in confusion, and another at AFCHD; take a look at WP:TH#Regarding Draft Article Citations and WP:AFCHD#May 23#00:09, 23 May 2026 review of submission by SWJeff1750

If it weren't for these instances I wouldn't even bother bringing it up, but these obvious expressions of confusion by the reviewed editors combined with the existing pattern is a problem I think. Athanelar (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that you don't have valid points, but I would rather wait a beat for other opinions; this is AFC not NPR so I would like to give a little more diligence before removing a formal PERM (though I would also note it expires 2 June). I'll cross-post to NPR as a courtesy. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac - I am a reluctant participant to this discussion since I feel the reviewer's heart is 101% in the right place. In particular we both participated in an awkward lying LLM sockpuppet draft (Draft:AuDHD now deleted) that ended up on ANI, where within the confines of WP:AGF he correctly rescinded his previous decision as more evidence emerged. However I too have concerns. Particularly on days when as a new AFC reviewer he was operating at a rate of 121 reviews in 24 hours, using an LLM tool to do so, and coming up quite a number of cases on the Help Desk. Moreover, and I accept this not unusual, he was also signing off New Page Patrol on his accepted drafts, some of which probably could have benefited from another pair of eyes. One decline where I felt I had to intervene was 23:29, 6 May 2026 review of submission by Yngvadottir where a very long-established editor, with autopatrol rights, rightly submitted a rescued draft for a second opinion review. The decline reason (person versus event notability) was difficult to take on board, and would have been easily fixable by the reviewer. That case did seem to undermine what we are trying to do here.

My concerns would be greatly mitigated if the reviewer stops using Wispr Flow, slows down (as they have done more recently), spends a little more time getting the rejection messages right, and does not NPP on acceptances. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If that is what would be deemed an acceptable result of this discussion, then that's fine with me. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My main concern is that the issue with erroneous decline messages was already raised to them earlier (the thread on their talk page which I linked), and no improvement was forthcoming (as evidenced by them making the same mistake just yesterday). I don't think I would be satisfied by them pledging to "be more careful", since that's what they already did in that thread on their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Athanelar@ChrysGalley@Primefac, thanks for the ping. Just to clarify I do not quite undrstand what you meant by "yesterday". I was on wikibreak, and haven't reviewed any pages in about more than a week. You can check my user history with regards to the same. Yes, I agree and apologies for adding incorrect decline tags to articles. I had issues with my PC, and was using an agentive tool to assist with PC usage. I have since stopped using it. You would be able to see this change in the recent AfC reviews after this was brought to my attention. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: this proposal to prohibit new accounts from submitting drafts by others

Although the discussion was not formally closed, there is clearly support for this proposition. Is this something that would be moved forward to fruition through this project?

Note that there were two alternatives suggested in the proposal, one being some technical removal of the ability of new accounts to submit drafts they had not worked on, and the second being a rule that such submissions would be rolled back. The first would be easier to enforce, since it would basically be automatic. The second would be on us as AFC reviewers to enforce. Any thoughts? BD2412 T 03:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue I have with automation is that folks may need to submit drafts by other accounts, either because they created the page as TA's and then created an account, or are an account that logged out and is now a TA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that this is the third or fourth AFC-related "proposal to overhaul everything" </hyperbole> that hasn't taken place here. I would also note that of the six people participating (not including yourself) there are only two NPR and none of the others are AFCH users. I do not have fully-formed thoughts on the proposal itself but at the very least we need input from the project before telling the project what we should be doing. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss it here, but something must be done. I have had several of my own drafts hit with drive-by submissions from spam accounts trying to build fake credibility before engaging on their spam efforts, and I have yet to see a brand new account legitimately submit someone else's otherwise untouched draft. BD2412 T 16:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I like Elemimele's proposal the best: "(account-isn't-EC) AND (account hasn't written at least 10% of the text)" being banned. I would change it to "(account has >100 edits) OR (created the draft)" being permitted as it would loosen up the minimum to take over a draft and also possibly make it easier to code (I do not know how hard it would be to check the latter part). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. It might've worked with IP addresses, but given that temporary accounts expire, this will mean that some people won't be able to submit their own articles if their account expires between doing most of the work and actually submitting. If someone submits a draft you're working on in a way that seems like spam/vandalism, that can be reverted individually, but not allowing people to submit drafts that they haven't written at least 10% of the text on seems unnecessary and like it would make it harder for TAs to use AFC... which is (some of) what AFC is for. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline template too big

Made a post here that's of interest: Template talk:AfC decline#Template is too large grapesurgeon (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Ricky (Chinese singer)

I've placed this submission on hold for now because it seems kind of messy.

• The original submission was created by a blocked sock, but has substantial edits by others
• Said original submission was previously declined at least once as "merge article on non-notable singer to notable band in which they are a member"
• I'm not certain if said merge ever actually occurred
• The draft was unilaterally moved to mainspace by a now-blocked account of a different sockmaster than the original creator
• This unilateral move was reversed without a proper edit summary. While I would normally just assume WP:BANREVERT as the reason, in this particular instance the user performing the revert has a litany of warnings on their talk page regarding declined submissions and unsourced additions related to pages on similar topics. Thus I'd argue that it could be plausible that there is some WP:POINTy element to this, though that's mere speculation and absent further evidence I'm willing to AGF
• Another user added a comment suggesting that the move back to draft space itself could be a violation of WP:DRAFTNO, though no further explanation was provided. I take no stance on the merits of that comment; could it be possible that we have two different policies or guidelines in conflict here?
• What's the best way to proceed from here?

I will be notifying both of the non-blocked accounts who have been indirectly mentioned here. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I will take a closer look at the rest later to see if I can add anything to it, but to clarify, I think the reason I noted WP:DRAFTNO was that the page had been created more than 90 days prior to being moved to draft (was created in 2023, and moved in 2026). I don't necessarily object to that, given the circumstances, which is why I noted but did not take any action (my usual choice when I haven't analyzed the full situation) Edit: If the move to draft was a revert of a sock moving the page, I'll agree it was probably appropriate, and I did not notice the block back then. ASUKITE 18:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash I moved the article to draft status at that time because it was incomplete and wasn't ready for publication. I made a mistake because I didn't know I needed to add a draft summary, and I apologize for that. However, considering the recent changes made to the draft, I believe it's now ready for publication. Techgamer534 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewers willing to review articles upon request

I know that on Wikiepdia, there's things like "list of administrators willing to blah blah blah", to aid people looking to get something done that needs admin assistance. I was wondering if there were any things like that for AfC reviewers who will make a point to review an article if specifically asked to (like, on their talk page or smthng). If there's not one, I'd be willing to help set one up (Although I will admit I'm somewhot technologically inept, 😅). Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot, we discourage that kind of thing, so I would strongly suggest that you don't set up a page like that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Why's it discouraged? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't accomplish what you think it will accomplish. If such a list existed, that's where everyone would go, inundating those reviewers on the list, because everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly, so you'd be back to the same problem. ("why haven't you reviewed my draft yet? It's been two days/two weeks/etc") Better to have a queue where it is openly said that reviews may not be quick. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps there could be some sort of restrictions on it? Like, "Your review has to have been pending for (two weeks or something like that) to be eligible" or something. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That's getting into WP:CREEP territory.

You are certainly free to, for example, monitor the AFC Help Desk for people that ask for reviews and then conduct a review, but once people figure out that you're willing to review on request, you will be inundated with requests.

The aforementioned administrator request categories are different; they are for things that generally require the use of the administrator tools, so they provide a central location for all admins to go to. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, cats like Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters aren't saying "bring us your copyright problems, we want to investigate", it's saying if you're looking for an admin to deal with a copyright issue, here are some you could ask. The equivalent in AfC terms would be something like "reviewers willing to investigate machine translation issues" or "reviewers with expertise in WP:MEDRS". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Which, incidentally, we already have. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If you monitor WP:AFCHD and WP:TEA you should see more requests for reviews than you can handle, plus the more you do the more begging requests you will get on your own talk page. Personally I find it offensive that some think they can just ask for a quick review before the other many thousands of people patiently waiting for months. Most of the time when people ask for a review it would be an easy decline anyway as it's rare as hen's teeth for a writer of a quality article to ask for a review. KylieTastic (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. It's typically COI/paid editors who ask for reviews early - they're the ones operating on deadlines. Be very sceptical of anyone who asks you to review their submissions if you haven't already engaged in prior conversation with them. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This time of year it's also students with deadlines from professors who have no idea how to run a productive/successful course about editing Wikipedia. If they waited this long to submit their draft for approval and it's due tomorrow... sucks to be them. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Single line submissions in history

Using slightly roundabout wording here. But can I have the benefit of insights from those who have seen this before? When we get a review with a single line history submission such as Draft:Rock Doido, where my decline is the second update, should this not really be rejected as contrary to our purposes? That's reserved for no-doubt-about-it cases that can't be rescued, which seemed plausible here, given the editor is en-2 and it's a meaty draft. Now this example does have an AFC template, they often don't even have that. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While I tend to write articles in multiple edits, I don’t think that someone doing it in one means much. It could be because they’re using an LLM but it could also be because they’re writing in a word processing software first or don’t want to hit published until they feel it’s done. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

These would be drafts that don't go through the submit process either, despite the initial AFC template. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming It's marked as a translation; is that why it sounds like AI? (Or translated by AI?) David10244 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I marked as AI since some extravagant wording is attributed to source 3, which is actually a soft focus interview with singer Gaby Amarantos, where there is only the loosest, and self-published source support for uber-SYNTH claims like This method aimed to capture the spontaneity and energy of the local culture, highlighting the aesthetics of urban peripheries and popular festivals. The interview does not say anything like that. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be very sceptical of drafts that were not only created in a single edit but also submitted at the same time. Maybe an experienced drafter will have figured out how to include a timestamped submission template as part of their draft creation, but I'd be more inclined to put that down to AI. I'm pretty sure this is also quite a new thing, I don't recall seeing those sort of single-edit-creations before at most a year or so ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you for clarifying that distinction! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. There has always been some editors that create a draft in one go, but to have that and also submitted would lead me to expect LLM use. It is not enough to just declare it must be LLM but certainly needs a close review expecting to find slop. KylieTastic (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Just as an example, here is a one entry create+submission, where the fingerprints of the chatbot were left in by the unfortunate submitter: ChrysGalley (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I had a similar thing yesterday, draft creation and submission as a single edit, with the following in the source (but wrapped inside comment tags so it wasn't visible):

============================================================

HOW TO USE THIS FILE (read wikipedia-how-to-and-notability.md too)

1. Create a Wikipedia account; add a conflict-of-interest (COI)

note on your user page.

2. Start a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

3. Paste everything below this comment block into the editor.

4. Replace each [NEEDS INDEPENDENT SOURCE] with a citation to a

newspaper/magazine/TV article ABOUT [your business] (not its own site,

not social media, not a directory, not a paid placement).

5. Do NOT submit until you have 3+ independent, reliable sources.

TONE: neutral and factual. No "premier / elite / world-class /

cutting-edge / best." This draft is written that way — keep it.

============================================================

No sooner had I deleted it than the author submitted another. I don't know if they didn't realise the instructions were in the code, or didn't think I'd notice them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! If only the robots' instructions towards the end of that extract were followed. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's actually good article-writing advice. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass draft creation

In the space of 3-4 hours, a TA has created 50+ drafts on Turkish and E.European athletes, a few of which have been thus far reviewed. I find it implausible that someone could manually churn out a new draft every few minutes, so I'm thinking LLM or some other automated process? There's no indication (that I've found) of these being translations, which might otherwise explain this, but if they are then they must be machine ones given the rate of output. I posted on their talk querying possible LLM use. What else, if anything, should we do about this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I picked a couple of drafts at random. Draft:Mohsen Siyar gets 100% AI-likelihood from ZeroGPT, but 0% from GPTZero and Quillbot. Draft:Ahmet Kayra Ödemiş gets 82.5% / 0% / 0%, respectively. Make of that what you will. In both drafts, the sources seem to check out, and there are no blatantly obvious signs of LLM use. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Whilst GPTZero gives Draft:Mohsen Siyar a 100% human score. All the refs are real and a couple of spot checks passed. They could just have prepped a lot up front either externally of just in separate tabs. Looks like they created 56 drafts in about 3.5 hours. It is a lot but not impossible, and at that speed I would expect an LLM to make hallucination mistakes. They are very formulaic with a few I've spot checked all being based of TaekwondoData as a source used multiple times per article as the base. KylieTastic (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think an LLM could produce that. It might be automated but not by an LLM. I would bet you an LLM would try to press some sort of importance lecture onto the articles while these articles are very dry and statistical. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Doh just noticed you already said 0% AI from GPTZero - trouts self! KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

For the record, Winston says 99% human with no sentences highlighted for AI. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought AI checkers were generally unreliable; has that changed? Or maybe that's true for academic work but different in a Wikipedia context.... SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They are one of an array of tools. They should not be used to single-handedly decide if an article is generated with such methods. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There's at least one other TA (on the same underlying IP range) involved in this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

To the question - what do we do? I have declined some of them for being purely database and governing body sourced. So WP:SPORTCRIT. Some of these drafts do have media reports, I'm leaving for now. Given the TA accounts, it's difficult to make a judgement on COI here (e.g. some initiative by a governing body), but I have asked anyway. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I would just leave them unless there is another spurt leading to hundreds of created draft. At that point, I think WP:MASSCREATE should probably take effect. I do not think a couple dozen drafts are enough for concern. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, WP:MASSCREATE is useful to know about. I reviewed a few earlier, all declined, although skimming through the others a few look like they could potentially be closer to approval. At the same time, there was a similar mass creation of archery results, from a different editor. These were very poorly-sourced (e.g. Draft:2024 European Archery Championships – Men's individual compound), and the person got very upset when some of them were declined, and immediately re-submitted them. Could also just be automated, as the articles are basically just results, with little to no text. Greenman (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The above contains good analysis, but I will note that there are at least two editors I know of (both indeffed for IDHT surrounding this sort of thing) that "back in the day" mass-created hundreds of sports-related biographies basically by pulling stats from sources and "filling in the blanks" on a pretty generic biography base. My point being I suppose that doing this manually is totally doable, if annoying. If they do persist in creating an unnecessary number of non-notable drafts I would suggest blocking the underlying IP, but as floated above simply reviewing them is probably fine for now. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this could be Pehlivanmeydani, who was blocked two months ago from the main article space for "Repeated AI-generated articles with source integrity issues". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes @DoubleGrazing, some of the archery material was under that name. I have some dialogue with him on my Talk page. The format between archery and the TA taekwondo and wrestling drafts is quite similar - a set of database listing sources, extracted in a proforma fashion. I declined due to the draft only having database listings, no secondary, no prose, he challenged my decline (the wording looks a bit LLM-ish but for the emotional bits), I said it needs at least some prose sourcing and suggested he just submit a few to begin with. Well within 20 minutes he had found multiple secondary sources for 9 drafts, which isn't something I can manage. The TA ones also now have multiple secondary sources. AGF, but something isn't adding up. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A question for @NeoGaze: The user discussed above has mass-created a whole bunch of similar articles. I've declined a few myself, and ChrysGalley has as well, but you approved this submission. It only has two sources, both pdfs from the same site, an enthusiast's archery website, so it looks very far from meeting the golden rule. What do you think? Greenman (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, since the event itself (2024 European Archery Championships) seemed to be notable enough, I tought there would be no issue with that submission. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source pdfs seem to come from official sources, even if they are hosted on a personal website. NeoGaze (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing - I am the relatively inexperienced reviewer here, compared to you and @Greenman, so I may well have this wrong, but under WP:SPORTSEVENT there is the sentence Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Elsewhere in the notability there is advice against using purely governing body publicity. The nearest example that I could use was UEFA Champions League in soccer (top European event in the sporting discipline) but that comparison could be challenged. I don't think WP:NSEASONS would apply, for upcoming soccer (etc) leagues, where amble further secondary sourcing would be guaranteed, the recent onslaught of drafts are some way into history, so we are unlikely to attract further secondary sources. That said, even on NSEASONS I will decline if there is zero secondary sourcing, not least because one active AFD editor will nominate those articles and usually prevail. That's my thinking, though I'm not saying I have this right. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't even comment, as sport is so far from my wheelhouse it's on a different fleet altogether, hence I try to steer clear of it. I would tend to agree with you in that at least some secondary sigcov is needed, but I also know that there are a lot of sports fan editors out there who feel that everything in their favourite sport is automatically notable and worth having an article about, so I'm probably just off the mark in what comes to community consensus (whether codified in P&G or not) on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

For me, the notability criteria seem to be clear. Even on topics that we may assume are notable ourselves, the WP:BURDEN is on the submitter to find sourcing to establish this notability. Sports articles can be very poorly sourced, and submitters use the WP:OTHER argument frequently as a result, but I'd still tend to decline these kind of submissions. I see that the editor has now started adding more sourcing to their archery submissions, so this is a positive outcome of the declines. Greenman (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have at times generated dozens of drafts at a time, usually from a database of individuals such as the justices of a particular state supreme court. I have not drafted and submitted right away, or purported to have drafted submission-ready pieces. BD2412 T 22:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been in touch with the editor, and it seems they don't too much worry about notability, they seem to work more on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basis, ie. if there are articles on the 2024 and 2025 editions of some sporting event, then in their view there should be one on 2026 as well, and so on. Some of their creations are translations (and they've been warned already a couple of times about not attributing them, so that's probably something to watch out for). They sort of denied using AI, sort of dodged the question; they rather said they create them on similar lines as before, which is why they are often formulaic in structure and content. They've been doing this for several years, and have created 1.6K+ articles (plus quite a large number of drafts), and only now that they've been blocked from the article space we're seeing them come through AfC. They asked me to just wholesale approve the pending drafts, which I said I couldn't do, and pointed out our 4.5K / 3 month backlog – although at the rate they're creating these, they can probably submit more than we can review in any given timeframe. So I hope everyone here likes reviewing sports drafts! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh boy. Perhaps we'll need to set a "you can only have x drafts in the queue" editing restriction. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed I've always thought that would be a sensible protection from abuse. We already have some limited to 20. From a quick scan we only have 7 people with 10+ submissions (Pehlivanmeydani - 46 Submissions; ~2026-32339-81 - 36 Submissions; ElNavegante23 - 15 Submissions; Mtvdanilo - 15 Submissions; ~2026-24855-28 - 13 Submissions; LionmerterTHE - 10 Submissions; Wilfredor - 10 Submissions). The editor with the current restriction of 20, FloridaArmy, only has 4. KylieTastic (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we can assume that is 46+36=82 drafts in scope here. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct. That's actually fewer than I expected, but the number is bound to go up.

I agree that a revolving limit would be a good idea, and 20 sounds okay to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing - apologies but further guidance needed. I have resolved to review 1 (one) review a day of the 82 in the queue, subject to mood. Can I check this, since we best have a consistent approach here:

• Draft: Archery championship 2026 men's recurve draft- 107 prose words plus lists
• Article space: the existing article on the championship as a whole - 248 prose words plus lists

The differences between the two are (a) a specific medals table (b) two paragraphs of prose (c) sourcing for b, given the previous decline. My view is that this is effectively a splitting exercise being done via AFC, presumably because this is easiest route for the author, and is of questionable merit: the minor draft additions can be added to the championship piece. I'm happy to go over the parapet to say this, and this would then reduce the proliferation effect if applied consistently, since we are getting around 6 sub-articles per championship event. But there would not be a point in doing this unless this approach is consistently applied. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley my take is that there's nothing wrong with splitting per se. Here, the combined article is long and those interested in the topic can best decide how to navigate. If I have concerns, in the past I've suggested they reach consensus on the combined article's talk page. It's more the notability issue we should concern ourselves with. Here, sourcing for even the combined article is pretty poor. But if the submitter can establish notability for each split event, that would be OK with me. Greenman (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Greenman - thanks for that. I'll proceed on the basis that splitting isn't problematic in these cases, at least for AFC purposes. I am inclined to accept the draft, because while the secondary sourcing isn't tremendous, at AFD level it is more like to end as Keep than be deleted, as a sporting event, and if not, it could end up as Merge. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit late (!) response, but hopefully better than never. I agree with Greenman that notability is the main thing we should focus on, while the decision to split (or not) an existing article should be discussed on that article's talk. I know we sometimes get dragged into split etc. issues because authors insist that we must review a draft which effectively amounts to a split, and more to the point accept it unless there's a clear reason not to, but by and large those sort of decisions aren't (IMO at least) within AfC's remit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, so round 72: today's draft for me to check was this one:

Naemi Leistner in draft space

and I carefully check every detail, including Wikidata to see if this is a translation. And not only that, it is already translated by a "new" editor into mainspace:

Naemi Leistner in article space

Now I would obviously prefer not to be wasting my time on this ridiculous charade, but there is also this to consider:

AI noticeboard discussion on this "new" editor

I think this is now out of my pay grade, so is this over to the adminstrators? At the very least the drafts need to be removed (happy to decline every one, if that is the advice). Since this is behaviour related is in more ANI anyway? ChrysGalley (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion for autofilled sub cat of AFC submitted- less than 50% ascii.

Not sure where to suggest an additional autofilled category similar to "under 450 characters" and "in userspace". I just did a "denied" for not in english an article that the displayed text appears to be almost entirely sinhalese. I'm not sure which would be easier, testing the displayed characters or the source characters, but I'm guessing for each of these that any article where less than half of those characters are in ascii (roman alphabet plus things like numbers and accented letters) should be in a separate category. I'm not tied to the 50%, but would like discussion of both what's easy and what percentage to use...Naraht (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Something that's entirely in a foreign language is a speedy decline, so I'm not really sure what use we would get out of a tracking category. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the same functionally applies to the under 450 characters. So seems similar.Naraht (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m 🆕

Hi I’m 🆕 to Wikipedia Xander 2224 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Xander 2224 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! If you’re new, the best place to ask for help is at the WP: Teahouse. This page is used by experienced editors who are reviewing AFC submissions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

AFC Help

Evance Joyce (t · c · reviews)

Hello, I've run into a new editor, User:Evance Joyce who has only been editing Wikipedia for a few days but who is accepting drafts submitted to AFC. Could you check their edits and acceptances to make sure everything is above the board? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Liz, Problematic, or worse. The first article Muyeez (singer) the user Evance Joyce moved to mainspace, they had originally created in draftspace, submitted, got rejected, added more and then accepted themselves.Naraht (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tochi Clement where I have already reported the account. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I've run into a couple other brand new accounts who are "accepting" drafts and moving them into main space. I thought you had to be approved to have access to the software to do this. Or are they just moving articles manually and then copying and pasting the standard templates on the page creator's User talk pages? It seems like they would have to have a certain amount of editing experience to know how to do this but, of course, they could just have previously blocked accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to be approved or have the NPR permission to use the Articles for creation helper. If their edits don't have the AFCH tag then they're presumably doing it manually. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I had the same question as Liz, and have answered it. The history of the article that they accepted looks as if they were using the AFCH script. However, as Helpful Raccoon notes, if they really were using the AFCH script, the script would tag their edit in the history to indicate that it really was the AFCH script. It appears that this now-blocked user has reverse-engineered the steps that the AFCH script does. As Liz implies, they had a certain amount of editing experience and were copying the steps taken by the AFCH script. So my thought is that if we see that an editor is moving drafts into article space in a way that does the cleanup that the AFCH script does, but is not using the script, there is reason to be suspicious. Can anyone think of a legitimate reason for an editor to be "accepting" drafts without really using the script? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a legitimate reason... Only by a big dose of AGF in that the user is just super-keen and wants to help out and attempts to emulate our edit summaries. If that's the case a talk page note should clear it up. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: This page already exists in mainspace

Based on a comment above, where @ChrysGalley spent time reviewing a draft, only to find that the article already existed in mainspace, I suggest that this information is immediately available when clicking Review. It should be listed in the same place as the information about previous deletes, etc.

Currently this information is only available on clicking Accept ("Whoops, the page "..." already exists.") by which time the reviewer has already spent the effort on the review. I've run up against the same in the past as well.

Sometimes it's simply a redirect, and we still want to proceed with a speedy and then approval, and at other times it's a full article, so the tool could differentiate between these two cases as well. Greenman (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Does it not normally appear at the bottom of the "pending submission" template? In solidarity, nil ^nz 10:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think it did, and it is now showing in that specific case under the "under review" template. But because of the Mass Creation event behind this, I didn't notice it, whereas at Acceptance, or for previous deletes, there is no avoiding those warnings. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Came to say the same, but wanted first to find a draft where this applies, to check that it really does work as intended. Found one, and it does: Draft:Anthony Manning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it. Personally, I'll keep an eye out in future, but I'd never noticed it before, and it's not very visible there, being a small text change the same colour as the rest in a long template one thinks one knows. So I still suggest, for future reviewers, it appears when clicking review, in orange, with the other important messages. Greenman (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I can certainly make the text gigantic like with the copyvio warning. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Drafts left in draft space/ circumvented review

Posting here because this is a procedural question, relating to multiple articles, that probably requires action by an admin. In the last few days, User:Granittemaj, with a declared COI has created Draft:REBBL, Draft:Mark Wexler (social entrepreneur), not submitted them for review, then copied and pasted the whole articles to REBBL and Mark Wexler (social entrepreneur). To the AFC community, what's the done thing in this situation?

To Granittemaj: it's possible to move articles from Draft space to article space; copy-and-pasting leaves the whole draft in Draft space, where it obviously can't stay forever. Thanks for declaring your Conflict Of Interest with respect to the group of articles you are editing, but to manage that COI it would be better to submit your drafts to the Articles For Creation process for review by volunteers. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging this. I was not aware that copy-pasting the content rather than moving the draft was the wrong approach. I understand now that this bypassed the review process, which I should not have done given my declared COI. I am happy to submit both drafts through the proper AfC process and defer to admins on whether the mainspace articles should be reviewed or moved back to draft space pending review. Granittemaj (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Granittemaj, have you used an LLM to create or copy edit these creations? In solidarity, nil ^nz 11:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I used an AI assistant to help structure and format the wikitext, citations, and article layout. All factual content is sourced from independent, verifiable references as cited in the articles. I reviewed and edited the content throughout the process and take responsibility for the submissions. I am aware of Wikipedia's guidance on LLM use and have tried to ensure accuracy and sourcing throughout. Granittemaj (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to share what LLM model and version you used on the articles? I note you've said that you reviewed and edited the content throughout the process, but you haven't actually confirmed that you wrote the content yourself. In solidarity, nil ^nz 11:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Couple of things here. First, it is not forbidden for a user with a COI (or even PAID) to skip AFC, unless they are specifically mandated to use it. Second, while it is not ideal, there is also nothing wrong with being the only editor to a draft and then copy/pasting it into the article space. In the case of these pages, though, there were edits by other editors, so they should have been moved and not copied (I have done a histmerge to catch the couple of non-creator edits).

So from an AFC perspective, the question "what should we do" can be answered with "decline the draft as exists and let NPR take care of the article if you don't want to deal with it yourself". Primefac (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Community's position on AI-assisted tools in AfC?

Hi all. I am interested in helping with the AfC backlog.

Before I explore anything further, I'd like to understand the community's actual position. After a nice chat in the IRC, I was recommended to ask here:

1. Is there any role the community considers acceptable for AI assisted tooling in AfC, or is it a hard no across the board?

2. Does it matter whether the AI only advises a human reviewer, who makes every decision - versus actually editing/accepting/declining? Or is any AI in the loop unwelcome regardless?

3. Is the concern specifically about AI making notability/judgment calls, or does it also extend to narrower automation, like checking whether a cited source resolves, is independent, or is from a reliable publication?

4. Is there a prior discussion, RfC, or essay I should read to understand the established consensus (e.g. the earlier proposal by Jimmy Wales I've heard about)?

Even if the answer is "the community doesn't want AI" that's a completely fine and useful answer, I am just trying to find my way to help.

Thanks for your patience with a newcomer. Ordiopside (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

My view, for what it is worth, is that since we expect our submitting editors not to use LLM (with 2 narrow exceptions) then they have a reasonable expectation that we too will not use LLM. Those that use LLM in drafts have been known to deploy this argument: "yes I used LLM to help format the draft but the content is all my own work", which is similar to your point 2 and may well prove to be untrue. A submitting editor who has studiously avoided LLM may be quite annoyed by that argument. There has been some review incidents in this space which did not to turn out very well, from what I could see, and generated pushback on the Help Desk. I would be very concerned if AI was advising accepts / declines. I am not sure what LLM can add, since we are not looking for perfection, there are some legitimate judgement calls here. There are some tools out there (listed by the reviewing instructions) which can, for example, show good sources like the BBC in green, and bad sources such as IMDB in red, which speeds things up a bit. But even then, just because someone has used the BBC doesn't mean that notability/verification is in place, it could be a spurious citation. That said, it's always good to consider what can be done to get the backlog down. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ordiopside: Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources will give you an overview of current policies, consensus, and points of contention relating to generative AI on Wikipedia, not just for the AfC project. Thank you for asking here before launching an experimental AI (if that's your intention). One of the great strengths of Wikipedia, especially now, is that it is built by a community of volunteers who are passionate about doing the kinds of deep research, writing, and editing that cannot be matched by current AI technology. While Wikipedia editors are not organised into a rigid hierarchy, we do place a lot of value in human judgment, trust, and social capital. There are various positions of responsibility, such as AfC reviewing, that are granted to editors who have spent some time (months or years) in regular editing and have demonstrated their understanding of the community's policies, guidelines, and culture. And there are a number of experienced editors who have developed modern LLM-based tools to assist with various quality control processes, such as verifying citations or identifying vandalism. In fact, some of our anti-abuse tools were using machine learning long before the current AI boom.

This is a long-winded preface to saying that, as someone with a relatively new account, you can best help the AfC process by setting aside the questions you asked here, gaining ediitng experience with smaller editing tasks on existing articles, and working your way up to more substantial editing. Successfuly creating a brand-new article requires the research experience and editorial judgment that can only be gained organically by doing a lot of editing, which is why we try to encourage new editors to work their way up. I hope you can see that successfully reviewing new articles requires even more experience and judgment. If you do decide to put in the hours learning the ropes here, over time you will learn what qualities reviewers are looking for in a new article. By this stage, you might have a more solid basis to decide whether current AI tools could offer any benefits to reviewers, and what kinds od exploratory questions might be helpful. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 14:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both, ChrysGalley and ClaudineChionh.

I'm going to set the tooling questions aside and take your advice, spending time learning the policies and culture from the inside before revisiting. I'll start with the Teahouse and the Task Center, and read Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence for the background. Appreciate you both taking the time to explain rather than just shutting it down. Ordiopside (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Ordiopside, you're already making a good impression. Wikipedia has been used for at least two unauthorised experiments in agentic editing this year, so I genuinely appreciate you listening to the community first. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

New Decline Codes

A little while ago, I noticed that several new decline codes have been added. I have a few questions that I may know the answers to. In particular, I see that -nosource- has been added. In the past, when I encountered drafts with no references, I declined them as -v-, and left a message {{nonono}}. Am I correct that -nosource- is a proper subset of -v-, and that -nosource- should be used when it is applicable because it is a stronger decline reason? I will still use the {{nonono}} message. Also, is the use of -v- in order when a draft has malformed references, or references that result in red errors?

Also, am I correct that the -nn- code should be used less often than in the past, because there are now a list of specific notability reasons based on the applicable guideline? Should -nn- only be used if there isn't a more specific notability reason?

To repeat, am I correct that -nosource- should be used rather than -v- when both of them are applicable (because -v- is always the case if -nosource- is the case)? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The main appeal of -nosource- to me is that it both explains that Wikipedia articles need references and how to add them. In contrast, -v- just says your sources need to be good without assuming that the user doesn't know how to add them. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's somewhat explained under WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Verifiability, but the instructions could do with a rewrite. In the first instance, drafts should be declined against notability. If the subject is probably notable, but the references don't support that notability (e.g. the source is unreliable, or they don't verify the claims of the article), then that's when you'd use the -v- decline. In general, you shouldn't use a notability decline and a verifiability decline together. The -nosource- decline is a variation of the -v- decline, in that it's applicable when there are no sources at all (so to answer you last question, shouldn't be used with -v-).

You're correct about the -nn- decline – it's easier to think of it as a "doesn't meet GNG" template and the others as "doesn't meet SNG" templates. Where possible, use the specific notability template, and for everything else, there's -nn-. In solidarity, nil ^nz 00:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Also just to clarify what I mean by If the subject is probably notable, as it's caused some confusion in the past. This doesn't mean that reviewers need to perform a WP:BEFORE, but rather judge what's presented in the draft. For example, a draft may say something like:

• "John Doe is a professor and fellow of the Royal Society"
• "Jane Doe is a member of parliament..."
• "Garageband's debut album went platinum and peaked at number 67 on the Billboard charts"

All three of these would meet our notability criteria, so shouldn't be declined for notability. If they had no sources, then a -nosource- decline is appropriate. If they are poorly sourced, or the sources don't support the article's claims, then that's when a -v- decline is appropriate. In solidarity, nil ^nz 01:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• In terms of the parenthetical point (because -v- is always the case if -nosource- is the case) - if the submitting editor is truly new and has submitted a draft with zero sources, then I'm happy just to decline as "no sources" rather than overload them with P&G alphabet soup. I know in the ideal world you'd want to itemise all the issues to get the draft over the line, but my perception is that by the time the new editor has gotten to the end of WP:REFB they will have worked out that not any old source will do. Wishful thinking perhaps, but for those in rolled in from the pub and want to get their favourite band into Wikipedia, a very simple point is "you're gonna need sources first". -ChrysGalley (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewers allowed to make improvements to draft before review?

I've done this a few times before, most recently Favell Museum, where I make more than just cosmetic changes and add sources for unsourced content or remove significant uncited content I can't find a source for. I do this for drafts that meet notability guidelines but just need a quick NPOV or verifiability fix before acceptance. Just ensuring I'm allowed to do this. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire, why did you decline my draft? (talk) (contribs)🔥 03:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Improving articles is what we're here to do. Cabayi (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, improve, improve, improve - it's all good. KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Uw-draftmoved has been upgraded

Hi, all. Template:Uw-draftmoved has been upgraded to better support moves to user subpages. Hopefully this will lead to fewer junk pages ending up in Draft space, thus decreasing the load here. Details in the expanded § Usage section at the template. Your feedback would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Uw-draftmoved. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think moving these things to a subpage is a good idea, actually. Moving them to draft means they will eventually time out via G13 and be cleaned up. Don't worry about the tempting button putting more work onto AFC reviewers. Junk is very easy to quickly decline. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a little. There are times, though, when they really, really have to go to a subpage and not draft. If I have to, I'll start keeping a list, but a lot of them are truly cringeworthy. I am somewhat mollified to hear that they are easy to decline, and will hang on to see what others think, but in my mind I just can't justify an Afc reviewer spending ten seconds of their time on them. It makes me feel too guilty, like I'm passing on a very ugly buck when I should be nuking them—which I have been doing more frequently lately, tagging them with {{db-g11}} or other codes. But let's wait and see. Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

If they're truly cringeworthy, though, it's genuinely better that they end up in draftspace. Drafts all get deleted eventually. Most userpages hang around indefinitely. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)