Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

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

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

1,340 pending submissions to update

• 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.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Bottom of page

Chart: Pending AfC submissions

Backlog chart daily Backlog chart weekly

Submit-a-draft suggestion

Hi, I just submitted a draft for a disambiguation page, Draft:PWX, and had a surprise when I was going through the submission process. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting noticed that the page was marked with {{disambiguation}} and prefilled a short description saying "Topics referred to by the same term". However another part of the same page gave me an error message warning me that my submission was likely to be declined because it didn't have any references. Disambiguation pages shouldn't have references, and since the page can detect that a submission is a disambiguation page, shouldn't the "you have no references" warning be disabled for disambiguation submissions? 49.198.51.54 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. I'll implement this, but if I forget please leave a note on WT:AFCSW. – SD0001 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Banned user gaming the system of redirects to create music articles

How can we fix the problem of blocked or banned users asking for the creation of a redirect so they can create a new article without registering a username? Banned editor User:Rishabisajakepauler has been gaming the system in this manner, using IPs from Texas including Special:Contributions/47.190.14.71, Special:Contributions/108.217.3.222, and the range Special:Contributions/172.58.104.0/21. He came here and asked for Havin' My Way to be created as a redirect,[1] then he created the article with another Texas IP.[2] He came here asking for a redirect to the album 7220,[3] then created the article three months later.[4]

Editors unwittingly helping him evade his block include Idoghor Melody, Ss112, AshMusique, Rich Smith, Qwerfjkl and Lk95. Here are a bunch of links to his article creations from redirects.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] In another case, he took over a disambiguation page.[24]

I feel profoundly disturbed that we have a system in place that allows block evaders to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

When a redirect gets flipped from redirect to regular article, it gets marked as unpatrolled, and it is added to the WP:NPP queue. So that is one safeguard. WP:SPI is another avenue to explore. SPI won't allow checkusers to link usernames to IPs for privacy reasons, but can attract the attention of admins who will block on behavioral evidence. Taking over a disambiguation page is trickier... hopefully our Huggle folks and page watchers will catch that one. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, @Binksternet, I watchlist all redirects I create, and then draftify them if they are converted into an article (although I missed Dancing Feet (song) above - I suspect I saw that an extended-confirmed editor (now blocked) had expanded the article, and thought not worth draftifying).
For taking over a dab page, maybe an edit filter could be put in place? Qwerfjkltalk 06:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1075158931 for an example draftification. Qwerfjkltalk 06:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, I understand your concerns, just that I've not seen them pop up in my watchlist apart from Amrita Schools of Business which I saw one time ago but didn't give much attention, well, moments ago I was going through articles I created and saw it and my mind immediately flashed to this complain here. But as Novem Linguae noted above that “When a redirect gets flipped from redirect to regular article, it gets marked as unpatrolled, and it is added to the WP:NPP queue.” This Amrita article in question has been marked reviewed by Onel. I just rated it though. However, the AFC review banner is still there, don't know if to remove it or not. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody, as the article hasn't been reviewed by an AfC reviewer, it should be removed. Qwerfjkltalk 06:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Doing that right away. We will put more eyes on the redirect's we create for IP's going forward. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

He's still actively making requests: this request yesterday was fulfilled by Idoghor Melody here. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary bug fix

A bug has caused the edit summary for the user talk page notification to say "declined (AFCH 0.9.1)" when declining or rejecting an AfC submission. Could anyone please review my proposed bug fix and merge the changes if possible? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed by Enterprisey GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather say you get all the credit! :) Enterprisey (talk!) 19:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Plug-in electric vehicles in...

I've been seeing drafts like Draft:Plug-in electric vehicles in Maryland for many states, all of them fairly formulaic. Ingenuity, Greenman, and I have accepted a couple of them, while SounderBruce, Mcguy15, and Johannes Maximilian have declined some. I think all of them are about the same in terms of sources and other indicators of notability, so I wanted to get some more eyes on the collection. Rusalkii (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason I initially declined Plug-in electric vehicles in Georgia (U.S. state) was because the topic was a duplicate of Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Georgia. I thought it was pointless for the separate page to have substantially less prose than the section in the main article. I raised these concerns to the creator, and they said that most of the content in the main article is outdated. I responded, telling them to be bold and remove it, and upon the trimming of that section, I accepted the AfC. (Assuming it passes GNG) I believe the articles should be accepted, while keeping in mind to update the prose on Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States, as to not leave 2 pages on the same topic. Hope this helps! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 04:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

As much as I generally dislike short pages that could easily be part of a larger existing page, Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States is huge and probably should be split. That being said, I don't think this particular information merits splitting, so whether this results in these satellite pages being small enough to redirect back to the main is a discussion to be had at the main article's talk page. That being said, if the other states have hit the point where they could theoretically be notable, then we should do the same for all of them. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the fundamental concept of any such pages is that they can be arbitrarily created for any topic without the need for significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources that are dedicated to "Plug-in electric vehicles in…" in a way that their primary subject is "Plug-in electric vehicles in …" don't exist. Most of these drafts in question are based on sources that describe the topic "Plug-in electric vehicle" in general, (or on primary sources). I also think it's sensible to once again highlight that the fundamental concept of the said drafts is simply "[SUBJECT] + [PLACE]". This "allows" creating any article based on sources that describe either [SUBJECT], or [PLACE], but without having to cite a single source that discusses both [ARTICLE + PLACE]. Thus, this doesn't only work for "Plug-in electric vehicles in …", but any topic: How about "Whales in the Arctic Ocean", "Narwhales in Canada", or "Narwhales in Creswell Bay"? It would be undoubtably unreasonable to create any of these articles without sources that explicitly discuss these exact topics. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely not trying to be pedantic here, but I think what I said jives with what you're talking about. The main article is too large, and so should be split off. I'm not saying that these articles should be split off, but something should be split off, and ideally something that fits your criteria. That would give a bit more space to re-merge these satellite pages (which likely are more of the cross-categorisation group than standalone articles) into the main article. My last point was more that it would seem odd to have only half of the states just due to one reviewer's criteria being different than another's, even if all of the states had drafts. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The entire "Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States" article is flawed. The first sentence should read something like this: "Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States are plug-in electric vehicles commonly found in the United States". Instead, the first noun is "adoption", and this "adoption" is "supported by the US federal government". Of course the article is large in size and totally fails at describing its topic – because it never defines what it is actually about. One can simply add anything "plug-in electric vehicle"-related to the article if it is also "United-States-related", to increase its byte count. This becomes especially evident when we take a closer look at the Operating costs and fuel economy section – none of the cited sources in that section describe "Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States". They are all about the United-States-specific tech specs (fuel consumption in miles per American gallon electric equivalent) of certain car models. Splitting the "Plug-in electric vehicles" article into multiple articles doesn't solve the problem – I'd argue that it'd spread the problem even further. Instead, I suggest adhering to WP:NOTEVERYTHING which I think is a very reasonable element of Wikipedia's WP:NOT content policy: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Id est that removing content from the article (that is only there because it is true), and doing so without moving this content into a new article is a valid option. But I guess this discussion should possibly be had at the article's talk page, as you suggested earlier. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

titleblacklist-forbidden-move

Getting "Error moving Draft:Yāfiʿī Arabic to Yāfiʿī Arabic: "titleblacklist-forbidden-move"". I assume this is a MediaWiki:Titleblacklist problem? Not sure what to do about it. Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii, just ask an admin to do it. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Rusalkii, just to verify, this is ready for acceptance? If so, let me know and I'll push it through. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to accept. Rusalkii (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. You'll probably want to make some redirects for the non-diacritic forms of the name. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Made Yafii Arabic, though I've asked the submitter to comment since I'm not sure dropping the superscript all together is the correct way to handle this case. Rusalkii (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

AFCH Bug

Tracked in github.com
Issue #164

Tracked in github.com
Issue #159

Please see User talk:Keyvelaki as an example. This draft had more than one reason for the decline, plus AFC comments, but only the CV shows. @Enterprisey, would you mind taking a look, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I filed a couple of bug reports in 2021 that may be relevant. #164 and #159 in particular. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae They certainly seem to be linked. @Novem Linguae 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

COI and blocked user page creations

I am a new reviewer and I just accepted a page creation request for the page Scott Caizley based on the notability of the subject. There were enough WP:IS and WP:RS for me to (just) accept it and then tag it for improvement in main space. It was only after I approved it that I notice that the user being notified had a name suggesting a COI and that their account had been renamed a couple of times and they (see current account at User talk:Viscountalexanderhugo) have been blocked for promotional editing. Is there any particular process for this sort of situation and is it at all possible for the AFCH script to alert you if the user has been blocked?

Apologies for the mess Gusfriend (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an update in the pipeline that will notify AFCH users if the submitting editor is blocked. It's either in the final stages or has been accepted but not-yet implemented on the live version. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. In this case it turned out to be the original article creator who has been blocked but it has been edited by other, non blocked, users since.Gusfriend (talk) Gusfriend (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we made the decision to check the submitter not the blocked user, since someone soft-blocked for a spam username might return under a new name and edit productively. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to change template wording

Hello all, there is an RFC underway to change the text appearing in {{AFC submission}} when it appears in the article space. Your input is welcomed at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. McClenon mobile (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarity on decline versus reject

I am confused by the somewhat interchangeable usage of decline/reject terminology. I understand decline to include both "not quite ready" and "it stands zero chance of surviving a hypothetical AfD". However, the instructions mention the term rejecting three times, however the key trigger for actually deleting it, would be a CSD tag not a rejection. Either I do not understand the distinction between decline/reject, or more explicit delineation would be helpful. Kind regards, and feel free to move this question to a more appropriate venue if necessary~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I know you're referring to the instructions themselves, but this conversation and parts of this conversation recently discussed the differences you are inquiring about and should get you started. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That being said, I just went through the reviewing instructions and "rejection" is only discussed in its own section. Where are you seeing these "three times"? Primefac (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac that's actually what I meant. The word is mentioned three times in one section, but I was expecting a further elaboration. I see explanations that it's between a decline and a CSD for example. I'd be happy to add a short section on difference between decline/reject, but wanted to make sure I understood the distinction. In most cases, I think it results in people asking why their article was rejected, and being corrected that it was declined. For practical purposes, that is pretty much the same thing, and even a rejected article/topic could be worked on, so I find the hard distinction somewhat moot. All that said, it is useful to preserve language that encourages users to keep improving articles that aren't quite ready for main space. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

A declined article will have a resubmit button. A rejected article will display a stop sign and no resubmit button, making it harder for the draft submitter to resubmit. Resubmitting after a rejection (there are ways around it) often results in an MFD. Usually the article doesn't qualify for CSD else that would be used instead. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Copying my question from wikipeida:teahouse

Hello editors good morning my name is Pritam mostly people know as your pritam I am a film critic. I don't have any Wikipedia knowledge by gathering knowledge from youtube I added content and based on my common sense I edited a draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raavan_(2022_film) pasted the link of the film releasing today of bengali superstar Jeet. I submitted review for this article now a yellow box appeared but before that a red box was there should I delete the red box? And how to remove that Draft: sign before Raavan pls say. 2409:4060:2E15:6F13:0:0:328A:C505 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Drafts to Improve Articles on Endangered Species

I have reviewed three drafts this evening that are of articles on endangered species, but the species already have articles. I think that this may be a class project. I have tagged the drafts to be merged into the articles. One of them has already been merged in. I have asked the submitters whether this is a class project. If so, the instructor is mistaken as to what the AFC process is for, but the mistake is harmless, because the students can always merge the information in after the drafts are declined as existing articles. Other reviewers may encounter similar drafts. Everyone is acting in good faith, although the instructor is making a harmless mistake. The additional information does improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Submitted user page

Someone had submitted their user page as draft, with its associated talk page. I moved it to its appropriate title... and then spent a good while mopping up the mess left behind with all the redirs and messages etc. In hindsight, I reckon all I would have needed to do when moving it was to untick the 'leave redirect behind' box, but it didn't occur to me at the time. (I think they call this 'learning the hard way'.) Or was there a better way to handle this / something else I should have done? Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you were moving it manually, I would recommend not moving the user talk along with it, but suppressing the creation of a redirect is also a good idea (since redirs from a userpage to article space are problematic). Primefac (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac — just had another one, and this time unchecking those boxes in the move dialogue made it all much simpler. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Acting as judge & jury

I recently declined Draft:Hortto Kaalo because the sourcing wasn't up to scratch (not the author's fault — it had been translated from fiwiki, and the sourcing in the original was rubbish). I'm familiar enough with the band to know that they would be notable, and as the creating editor wasn't keen to develop it further, I took over the editing, and I think it's now ready to publish. I've submitted it for review, and my question is: can I also approve it myself, or should I leave that for others? (I know technically I can approve it, but somehow that feels vaguely inappropriate.) Never had a situation like this before, so I thought I'd rather ask than put my proverbial foot in it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe that you have gotten it to a point where it would be likely to survive an AFD, then you are welcome to move the draft to the article space. Whether you do so by "AFC approval" or just by moving is entirely up to you, though given that you have improved the page it might be (optically?) better to just move the page and do the cleanup manually. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: If you think it is ready for main space, I would just move it without submitting through AfC (unless you like the auto-cleanup Primefac mentioned). You are a reviewer and think it's ready, and AfC is an entirely optional process, so a simple move is sufficient. It will get a separate set of eyes from the WP:NPP folks (unless you're autopatrolled), which is not optional. -2pou (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Meanwhile events have overtaken us, as Theroadislong has just kindly accepted it — ta muchly! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing Save you agonising and sweating over it! Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not here to judge anything but basic inclusion criteria. If the topic is notable and there are no fatal flaws (such as WP:CV, severe WP:NPOV or failure to meet WP:BLP requirements), you accept it. If sourcing is not "up to scratch" you or anyone else can fix that in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My comment about sources being rubbish referred to exactly what you also say: failure to establish notability and support the contents of the draft; in other words, "basic inclusion criteria", as you put it. In any case, my question wasn't whether I should have declined the draft; I'm pretty sure I did so correctly, but always happy to be proven wrong, of course. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing You also said I'm familiar enough with the band to know that they would be notable. In that case you can accept the draft as it is, watchlist it and you would presumably would WP:LIKELY be able to make a good notability case in an WP:AFD discussion. The core requirement for acceptance is that it is not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. It's not as high of a bar as most reviewers seem to think. If you don't believe me, spend some time participating at WP:AFD and assess for yourself. ~Kvng (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer Tamingimpala blocked as sock

Tamingimpala has been found to be a block-evading sockpuppet. They escaped detection for a year, and in that time collected a number of hats, including AFC reviewer. They are believed to have engaged in some paid/COI editing. I don't know whether that extended to their AFC reviewing. They accepted 20 drafts and declined 127, which seems a reasonable ratio. If there is good news, it is that they made many unproblematic edits, perhaps in an effort to create a legitimate facade. Their AFC reviewing may have fallen into that category. I leave it up to the community whether you want to reckeck their work or not. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like, from their talk page, it was only their recent editing over the past few months that started pushing non-notable article subjects that were frequently being AfD'ed and deleted. Everything from the beginning of their account, including their AfC reviewing and their article making, seems to have been done properly and with notable subjects (hence why they passed DYK reviews and such). If they were still doing any AfC reviewing since January, then I'd suggest taking a glance over of those to see if there's any issues. Otherwise, it seems like the COI issues were only a very recent and more blatant endeavor, which also led to them being caught because of it. Silverseren^C 05:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, looking back at an old version of their page listing their contributions, I see the usual suspects are going around and doing their revenge fantasies about banned users and trying to delete every article the person ever made. Thus making Wikipedia objectively worse in the process. I don't have the energy right now to try and prevent the active damage to Wikipedia they're doing. Silverseren^C 05:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at archived versions, most of those appear to be good work - if the issue with this editor is paid/COI editing, I don't believe an article on a uncontroversial 19th century teacher will be compromised by that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

But it was made by a banned user, therefore it must be deleted. Because, much like the United States prison system, Wikipedia is about punishment, not rehabilitation. We need to erase every facet of a sockpuppet that ever existed, no matter the cost or even the logic or rationality behind the decision. Since Wikipedia is not about making an encyclopedia, it's about the in groups and the out groups. Silverseren^C 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've requested that article is undeleted. I might go through the others later. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question on how individual sources can contribute to GNG

Can a source still contribute to GNG if it only contains a subset of "SIGCOV", "reliable", and "independent"? So if there are two sources that are being used to show a subject meets GNG, do they BOTH have to contain significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or can they each have a subset of those elements that "add up" to the subject globally having "SIGCOV", reliable sources, and sources that are independent of the subject? Note this question is ONLY about sources counting toward GNG, it is not about what sources can be in the article. A pointer to a previous discussion on this would be helpful. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm parsing your question correctly, but if (for example) you had one source that was reliable-but-short, and one that was significant-coverage-but-primary, I would argue that does not demonstrate GNG has been met. In other words, yes, in order to demonstrate GNG you need enough sources that meet WP:42; if that is met then there isn't any issue with primary sources being used to flesh out other details. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay It might help to read WP:PRIMARY and also WP:SELFPUB each of which speaks of the limited circumstances in which this type of reference may be used. Broadly, either of that style of reference may be used to substantiate uncontroversial facts, that is those not susceptible to challenge.

Neither is of any use in establishing notability in a Wikipedia sense.

As an example, a Press Release is generated by or for the subject of the release. It will have significant coverage. It may be in a Reliable Source, but it is not independent of the subject. While it might be used to establish a simple fact it confers no notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is my understanding as well. However, an established editor is arguing this is completely wrong, that "everyone knows" those qualities can be distributed across sources... So I am checking that the established interpretation is indeed that each source that is intended to contribute to GNG does need to meet all of those criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

As the established editor in question, my point (elaborated here) is not that a source that is unreliable, or that is self-published, can ever contribute to Notability. Rather, I was saying that the degree of RS, independent, secondary coverage required from each source by SIGCOV is not a fixed threshold for each aspect - like SIRS - but depends on the context. To give the most obvious example, one indelendent, secondary RS with very "deep" coverage of a GNG topic can compensate for the rest of the sources being mere mentions (at least, this is what SIGCOV implies). Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

These were the statements you made that seemed to directly conflict with what I understand GNG to mean, and which I wanted to clarify with other experienced editors:

1. As far as your first four points go, which are less original, their logic does not require two GNG sources, as the GNG itself does not. SIGCOV allows these qualities to be distributed among sources (as opposed to SIRS, which requires them to be present in each source) which means that, strictly speaking, all these GNG requirements can be met with no "GNG sources" at all.

2.

As "everyone knows", the difference between SIRS and SIGCOV is reflected in the following text of SIRS: An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. This is not true for SIGCOV/GNG, where it is specified (under "sources") that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are generally expected, not required, and editors are to take into consideration quality and depth of coverage - as a whole, rather than SIRS' requirement that a source have all relevant qualities (including CORPDEPTH) to be counted.
So, for example, while non-independent sources do not generally count for Notability, a topic that has some independent, secondary coverage and more extensive coverage that is reliable, but not fully independent or secondary, can pass SIGCOV better than, say, a subject that has, say, only two indisputably independent, secondary sources where the coverage has less depth.

3. But SIGCOV doesn't say that multiple sources are required that meet each of the SIGCOV criteria, it is actually quite explicit about that when you read the "sources" section, and so people who treat it as though it does are simply wrong. That approach is SIRS, not SIGCOV.

The key facet that I am disputing here is your assertion that GNG does not require each of its contributory sources to meet each of the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

And my point, clarified here, is that there is no fixed threshold of each aspect of SIGCOV required for a source to contribute to GNG Notability. Each criterion needs to be met, but SIGCOV significance is widely contextual (and taking the guideline literally, is a very low threshold) while reliability also represents a rather wide range of acceptable sources. SIGCOV simply does not require that each source meet all of these criteria at a specified level before we take it into account in determining GNG notability - unlike WP:SIRS for NCORP, which does. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, are you still arguing that each of the characteristics outlined in WP:GNG does not have to be present in each source that is intended to contribute toward GNG? Do you still dispute that a non-independent or non-secondary source, of any depth or quality, or one that provides only trivial coverage, cannot be used for GNG?

And just because SIRS gives more detailed, NCORP-specific minimum expectations for some criteria doesn't mean GNG doesn't also have a minimum expectation for all its contributing sources. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there is no standard for each of these aspects of SIGCOV that applies to all GNG topics equally and that must always be met at the same standard. While unreliable sources, ABOUTSELF sources and PROMO sources never contribute to Notability, such qualities as reliability and, above all, significance/depth exist on a sliding scale. The minimum value of reliability is that a source be reliable for the claim for which it is cited (the WP:V principle); the minimum unit of significance is a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content - but these are very low, formal thresholds. What matters the most is established in "sources" - they vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. This is a trade-off between source quality, depth and number of sources, and under SIGCIV (unlike SIRS) there is no fixed minimum number, length or quality level required, at least among formally independent, minimally reliable sources.

As a concrete example, a reliable source, independent of the subject, that verifies only that the subject has won a major award is correctly understood as addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and therefore contributes to Notability even if the mention is much shorter than the "one paragraph" threshold set out in the AfC reviewing instructions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No one is arguing that there's some uniform, unstated degree of each element required by GNG, but a source must still meet each of the standards defined in the guideline for it to be considered for GNG. Once it has been established as reliable, independent, secondary, and possessing non-trivial coverage, the source can be assessed for its depth, content, and quality in the context of any other GNG sources. The guideline is therefore providing basic exclusionary criteria, allowing editors to more quickly and easily discount a source from GNG consideration.

As a concrete example, a reliable source, independent of the subject, that verifies only that the subject has won a major award is correctly understood as addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and therefore contributes to Notability

But such a source is not contributing to notability through GNG. And it is certainly not providing the SIGCOV aspect you're claiming -- the sections of ANYBIO and NPROF that would grant notability based on winning an award are totally independent of the criteria needed for other subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

To start, again, at the end, I don't understand why you think the SIGCOV guideline would deny that the source I used as an example would count towards GNG Notability - and your statement that it is not is an excellent example of why I regard source table bingo and the approach it embodies (understanding SIGCOV as requiring a source to meet specified minima of significant coverage, reliability, independence and "secondariness") to be profoundly mistaken.

• First, the requirement for significant coverage in SIGCOV is that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The source in my example does so.
• The second requirement is that the source be reliable; SIGCOV reliability links to WP:RS which demands reliable, published sources and is backstopped by WP:V; the source in my example is defined as reliable.
• Also specified in the example is that the source is independent of the subject (SIGCOV's language on independence is in any case a lower bar than that specified for biographies in NBIO or for corporate topics in NCORP).
• The source offered in my example is not secondary; however, it is explicit in SIGCOV that the requirement for secondary sourcing is to be assessed at the article level, not per source. The header statement of SIGCOV is that a topic receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the sources bullet of SIGGCOV, where the secondary requirement is discussed, specifies that sources "should", not "must", be secondary, and that o fixed number of sources - not even two - is mandatory to meet this requirement.

So in the example I gave, the source has all the specified characteristics for SIGCOV except for being secondary, and not all GNG/SIGCOV sources are required to be secondary, according to the guideline. The length of coverage in the source is less than some rules of thumb (including AfC reviewing instructions) specify, but that doesn't preclude it from meeting actual SIGCOV requirements. For the GNG to be met in this example, some other sources would be needed, and those sources would have include secondary sourcing as well as treatment of the subject at greater depth (to satisfy NOTDIRECTORY) - but the guideline insists that these be evaluated globally, not by nitpicking each source. Yes, the only sources relevant to Notability are reliable and independent of the subject, but even those criteria are relative to the topic and statements of the article; meanwhile, depth of coverage and secondary sourcing are both required, but they are required at the article level and not of each individual source (above a very low minimum threshold of significance, which is rooted in NOR principles rather than in a paragraph, word or page count minimum).

As an aside, one of the main reasons SNG alternatives to GNG are so necessary to the health of WP as a project is precisely to avoid the nitpicky "coverage from this source isn't long enough and this source isn't secondary enough" when it comes to impeccably RS facts directly related to (what I prefer to call) the claim to significance of the article's subject. If SIGCOV were understood correctly, these sources would always meet SIGCOV. The instances when people insist that sometimes they don't - often through source table Bingo - are the major rationale for me to oppose GNG fundamentalism across the project. If editors could adopt a more nuanced approach to GNG/SIGCOV, then that would account better for a wider range of Notability decisions, but instead for a number of years editors have tried to inject AUD and CORPDEPTH criteria (outside of their intended place in NORG), mostly to deny Notability to topics they personally do not consider encyclopedic. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your example, if it was just an announcement of the winner of an award, would not satisfy SIGCOV as it would not cover the subject in detail. It would also fail independence (and would be primary), as the awarding org is not independent of the awardee. Both of these are basic expectations of GNG that are recognized pretty much universally at AfD.

The source offered in my example is not secondary; however, it is explicit in SIGCOV that the requirement for secondary sourcing is to be assessed at the article level, not per source. The header statement of SIGCOV is that a topic receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the sources bullet of SIGGCOV, where the secondary requirement is discussed, specifies that sources "should", not "must", be secondary, and that o fixed number of sources - not even two - is mandatory to meet this requirement.

Secondary coverage is a requirement for a source to count toward GNG. It is absolutely not "explicit" that it only be assessed at the article level; how can you possibly interpret the fact that GNG doesn't mandate a specific number of sources as evidence that a particular source doesn't have to meet any particular criterion?? Have you considered that maybe the GNG interpretation used by AfC and NPP and in tens of thousands of AfDs is actually the consensus?

If, as it now seems, your entire argument rests on "should" being used in various places where "must" could have been used, then I think we have a much greater CIR problem here since that approach would handicap all the policies that use "should", like WIKIVOICE, UNDUE, NOTRS, and BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your apparent assumption that "should" and "must" are always synonyms strikes me as potentially a much larger CIR problem. Is are generally expected the same as "are always required", too? As far as your OTHERSTUFF examples are concerned, UNDUE uses should concerning editor behaviour, a different kind of normative statement from the one SIGCOV places in sources. Again, CIR.

What text of SIGCOV do you see as supporting your statement that Secondary coverage is a requirement for a source to count toward GNG (my emphasis)? The opening paragraph of SIGCOV doesn't say that; reliable doesn't say that; sources doesn't say that (as previously discussed ) and presumed doesn't say that, either. The GNG simply does not make that assertion, where it comes to individual sources. (The argument, "but people have interpreted it that way at AfD" isn't really relevant: people have interpreted AUD as applying to non-CORP topics, and have claimed that topics meeting NPROF or AUTHOR also require GNG sourcing. Just because someone makes an argument, and someone else closes an AfD in agreement with that argument, doesn't make it policy.)

Also, concerning your first paragraph, the assertion that who or what is the recipient of an award is not sufficient detail to satisfy the NOR requirement of SIGCOV, and the opinion that a grantor of an award is in a WP:COI relationship with an awardee and therefore does not satisfy the WP:INDEPENDENT requirement as a source for the fact of the award - these views are not grounded in Wikipedia policy and only serve as potent reminders of why we can't have nice things. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident an interpretation of "should" as closer to "must" is vastly preferable to one where directions like how to handle a BLP vio or how to state controversial stances in articles are merely weak suggestions.

As I have said like 800 times now, the opening sentence of GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You still haven't explained why you think the significant coverage doesn't have to be in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The "secondariness" is part of the definition given for "sources", it is not a separable quality.

An announcement stating "X won Y award", released by Y organization, is plainly a trivial mention per the example given in SIGCOV. Being merely mentioned never counts as significant coverage. And a media announcement by an organization about someone becoming a beneficiary of that organization is clearly a work produced by an affiliate of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretending that an announcement from the grantor that X BLP won a major award is equivalent to the example given in SIGCIV, "In high school, (Bill Clinton was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is CIR all over again. And pretending that all short mentions are mere mentions and therefore don't count towards Notability is simply unsupported by any of the applicable guidelines; the animating principle of significance in SIGCOV is WP:NOR, not some editor's assessment of the relevant word count from the source. An independent, reliable source that supports a statement that has encyclopedic value should always contribute to the assessment of Notability (outside of NCORP where stricter criteria apply).

And speaking of CIR, if you read me as saying that editor instructions using should are merely weak suggestions - well, not only was I not saying that; that statesmen was unrelated to what I did say in any way at all, that I can discern. It reads to me as either a red herring or a dead cat, and I'm not sure which.

You haven't supplied any evidence for your assertion that "all sources must be secondary", since the actual sources bullet doesn't say that at all. The actual guideline says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected - IMO, this passage goes out of its way not to say "two secondary sources are required for GNG Notability", which was the question at issue.Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you not understand what a trivial mention is? Your interpretation of GNG would allow an article on someone based entirely off a handful of regional book award orgs mentioning that person as among their recipients since, according to you, these would satisfy all of SIGCOV, RS, and INDY. There would be no GNG-based reason to oppose creation of such an article; editors would instead have to argue over the (wildly subjective) "encyclopedic value" of every single verifiable fact on that subject, because, in your view, GNG could technically be automatically satisfied by just one of those sources. In this situation, why would we have notability guidelines at all if the only factors that can be used to exclude a topic are what the core policies explicitly say you "must" not have?

This is clearly not what happens on Wikipedia, and never has been. Just because you personally disagree with the interpretation of GNG used by AfC, NPP, and--based on your AfD stats--the vast majority of GNG-specific AfD outcomes, doesn't mean you can just disregard those projects from what determines consensus.

You haven't supplied any evidence for your assertion that "all sources must be secondary", since the actual sources bullet doesn't say that at all. The actual guideline says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected, which goes out of its way not to say "two secondary sources are required for GNG Notability", which was the question at issue.

Your interpretation of "should" obviates the entire purpose of this bullet point as anything beyond a mere suggestion and necessitates ignoring the first sentence of GNG.

I recommend you take this up on the WP:N TP so we can have a wider discussion, since I think we are each very familiar with the other's argument at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know on what basis you can say that we are each very familiar with the other's argument, when you are constantly conjuring up straw goats that have nothing in particular in common with what I have actually said or believe to be true. One recent example: Your interpretation of GNG would allow an article on someone based entirely off a handful of regional book award orgs mentioning that person as among their recipients since, according to you, these would satisfy all of SIGCOV, RS, and INDY - that isn't true in any way. In my actual view, SIGCOV has to actually be met by the available sources, taken together (and not in some silly source-by-source Bingo. Also, constructing these straw goats and then saying This is clearly not what happens on Wikipedia, and never has been doesn't really do anything to strengthen your argument, if that was your intention).

Since you have misunderstood my interpretation of GNG so profoundly, I will try again to explain. The whole point of assessing criteria globally is that the global criteria actually have to be met. You seem to believe that if one source that isn't SECONDARY is taken into account, then articles with no secondary sources will be said to pass SIGCOV. You have also supposed that in my view GNG could technically be automatically satisfied by just one of those sources, but those statements once again are pretty much the opposite of what I actually said and believe.

Secondary sourcing is required for an encyclopaedic article per GNG (because analytical claims must be based on secondary sources, and an article nominally constructed from a few, bare facts would violate NOTDIRECTORY - at least, that is how I understand it). But as the sources bullet of SIGCOV very strongly implies, one really extensive, secondary source can suffice to meet this requirement, and there are tradeoffs between secondary-ness, depth of coverage and number of sources so that the GNG compliance of articles is supposed to be based on overall (available) sourcing, not nitpicking the word count of specific sources.

So one non-secondary source alone would never satisfy "my interpretation of GNG" (your term; I just call it GNG). But one quality non-secondary source along with briefer, but still "non-trivial" mentions from other reliable, independent sources definitely can satisfy GNG, and there are plenty of AfD outcomes and stable non-stub articles available to give evidence for that statement. Meanwhile, your idea that a "trivial mention" under SIGCOV is defined solely by length of reference is unsupported by policy - the difference between an incidental mention of an otherwise non-notable band and being the recipient of a significant literary award ought to be obvious to those who would participate in AfD in a way that complies with our policies and guidelines.

Also I don't know why you think I would be hostile to Notability guidelines and their importance in any way. Taking them seriously - including taking seriously the differences between SIGCIV, NBIO and NCORP - is my way of honouring, not undermining, the purpose of those guidelines. I do wish our Notabiity ecosystem had a better way to consider a topic's credible claim to significance than sublimating those concerns into the GNG framework, which doesn't really work - but that concern isn't hostile to WP:N either in principle or in practice.

Finally, when I follow the links from the first paragraph of SOGCOV to NOR and from the independent bullet to COI, I am not at all implying that only the policies matter and WP:N is incidental. But reading the "independent" bullet as though it were talking about something other than COI, or the minimum threshold of significance as though it were based on something other than NOR and NOT, simply leads to misunderstanding of the GNG, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to reexplain the concept of "global assessment", it's not like having minimal criteria for each contributory source somehow makes this impossible or incomprehensible. But if the GNG could be partially met by a source that is not independent or that does not contain SIGCOV, that would allow a biography to exist where the only SIGCOV was in a staff profile and the only independent secondary sources were trivial mentions. Same with your hypothetical award announcement, which you claimed was both independent and contained SIGCOV. Your reading of GNG would not technically exclude an article from meeting GNG if it contained just this one source (since according to the "sources" bullet the secondariness and multiplicity are optional for meeting GNG), and if it contained a few secondary (but non-independent and non-SIGCOV) refs as well it would also comply with N. We would therefore have to rely on subjective evaluations of what is "encyclopedic" and what has "noteworthiness" or "merit" in order to delete it/reject at AfC.

But one quality non-secondary source along with briefer, but still "non-trivial" mentions from other reliable, independent sources definitely can satisfy GNG, and there are plenty of AfD outcomes and stable non-stub articles available to give evidence for that statement. Meanwhile, your idea that a "trivial mention" under SIGCOV is defined solely by length of reference is unsupported by policy - the difference between an incidental mention of an otherwise non-notable band and being the recipient of a significant literary award ought to be obvious to those who would participate in AfD in a way that complies with our policies and guidelines.

Where are these AfDs in which a SIGCOV source that is acknowledged to be primary is being used to support a claim of GNG (and not ANYBIO/NPROF/etc.)? Or where cobbling together non-trivial but still non-SIGCOV sources is used to satisfy GNG as opposed to BASIC? Where is this alleged consensus that a "trivial mention" means "only mentions occurring in a trivial context", and therefore being namedropped in a list of recipients of a significant honor is sufficiently "direct" and "in detail" to write more than half a paragraph on the subject?

But reading the "independent" bullet as though it were talking about something other than COI

Reading the "independent" bullet as if it was only talking about some narrow definition of COI is definitely not supported by the PAGs. Can you seriously not see how an award organization has a vested interest in promoting its recipients and portraying them in the most positive light, and why an article based on such sources would run afoul of NPOV? Why would this be any different from an academic society releasing glowing bios of their newest fellows, or a wealthy donor personally describing and praising the non-profit they just gave $1 million to? JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping to diffuse the WALLOFTEXT to which I have been contributing, so I will not try to answer everything. But to begin at the end, what I have seen is primary sources (e.g., for awards) used for that for which they are reliable - the fact of an award - and not for glowing BIOs or the equivalent statement about literary workz etc. Reliability, per WP:V, is always reliability for a specific claim, and no source can be used for a claim for which it is not reliable. I thought each and every one of my examples was clear about this.

And apparently I do have to keep explaining global assessment, because you continue to assert that my interpretation would allow a biography to exist where the only SIGCOV was in a staff profile and the only independent secondary sources were trivial mentions. Setting aside that in the case of a biography the stricter requirements of NBASIC apply - even apart from that, "my interpretation" has to be met by reliable, independent sourcing, so the staff profile doesn't count, and if the independent RS are in fact trivial then GNG is not met. "My interpretation" also requires secondary sourcing - it is just that, following actual GNG, it may be concentrated in one quality source with depth or distributed among many briefer passages that still offer SIGCOV, encyclopaedic references. This is what I mean by "global assessment" and have meant since the beginning of this discussion (and before).

Finally, I was not proposing that a more nuanced reading of WP:N ought to be used by AfC reviewers. I understand that the philosophy of this specific project requires that approved articles be unimpeachably Notable and sourced. But there isn't community consensus that the same criteria should apply elsewhere on WP: there is of course some bleed-over and scope creep, but the continued existence and viability of other paths into article space proves, I think, that the AfC way is not the only way. Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

To meet gng, I was taught that each source needs to meet each criteria. So there must be multiple sources (2+) that each meet all of the criteria. In addition to the 3 criteria you mentioned, must also be secondary. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand that this is what AfC volunteers are "taught in school", but the wild world of WP notability is considerably more complex than the guidance offered to AfC volunteers. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a AfC school? Why I wasn't informed there's one? Do you mean I have been relying wrongly on what I learn from others in discussions at the various venues? – robertsky (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I was making a facetious reference to the reviewing instructions. My review of the Talk pages here before making my comment was strictly limited... Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The reviewing instructions gives a structure to what to expect during a review, what pitfalls to avoid during a review, and what canned/standard rationales to give for each decline/reject decision in addition to whatever customised feedback we want to give. By the time editors apply to be AfC reviewers, we have (varying, but sufficient) levels of content creation experience on Wikipedia. And we rely mostly on that experience and the discussions on Wikipedia in general when reviewing drafts. Have you read through the guide? There is nothing in there about Novem Linguae's assertion of each source needs to meet each criteria. – robertsky (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I was thinking more of the broad-brush guidance about reliability of sources and significance of mentions, which I found more misleading than helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What I wanted out of this was to get the wider community's interpretation of GNG, not to paralitigate the topic with the same editor. So @Primefac, @Timtrent, @Novem Linguae, @Robertsky -- do you know of any prior discussions on this specific "ambiguity" that might be informative re: the operating consensus? JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay one AfD that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Jewellery Group. – robertsky (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky That article was under NORG, not GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay my understanding is the SNGs should be and are clarifications of how GNG and/or other central guidelines can be applied specifically to individual subjects. – robertsky (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is very interesting, but it isn't at all what WP:SNG says - and the current text or the latter resulted from a well-workshopped and widely participated RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Empahsis, mine.

Like you said, SNGs are results of well-workshopped and widely pariticapted RfCs. These discussions are rooted in the central tennets, GNG, etc. The allowance for articles that are initially presumed notable under SNGs to be deleted via AfD (like the spate of deletions of various footballer articles) if they are found not to be notable is a proof that SNGs should not be considered in the same standing as GNG by default. However, in most cases they are. My view that why editors uses NBIO, NORG, etc by default in their discussions, in addition of the consensus bulding process, is that these SNGs are clear and specific as to why and how the subjects can be notable; and that the types of sources they specify or advise to use are generally acceptable even in GNG to determine if the subject is notable. Some SNGs are even stricter than that GNG, like WP:NPROF. – robertsky (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be making a category error, in your generalization that SNGs should not be considered in the same standing as GNG by default. This difference of standing is really only true in NSPORTS, and neither the SNG text nor the wording of other SNGs support this interpretation for other SNGs in general. You seem to be using the former NSPORTS presumption of Notability as equivalent to the presumption of Notability elsewhere in NBIO (or for other SNGs), but that equivalency doesn't work.

For at least the last decade, NSPORTS has been understood as presumptive of, or "predicting" GNG Notability, This has never been true for other NBIO SNGs. The NSPORTS domain has also been subject to large-scale bot-like creation of articles, which is not true in most other areas. So of course NSPORTS has seen the mass creation of articles which are then found not to meet "GNG" (athletes should always have been subject to NBASIC instead, but whatever) - this isn't evidence that any of the other SNGs was intended to, or actually does, work in this way. Most SNGs offer a presumption of WP:N notability directly, rather than "predicting" a GNG pass.

On the other hand, you are quite right that several SNGs - notably NORG and NNUMBER, and to some extent NBIO and NFILM - are in fact stricter than GNG and that passing GNG is no guarantee of Notability, and the presumption of an article, either. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, many of the SNGs uses GNG as their premise and largely stuck to it, hence the categorisation as well. As for NSPORTS, there've been work done since the RfC, and last I saw (yesterday), it is still a work in progress. Kudos to the editors working on that. – robertsky (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky I agree that the SNGs in general were constructed with at least the basic tenets of GNG in mind, with several being pretty much identical to or explicitly based on GNG (e.g. NFILM, NEVENT, NWEB, NASTRO, NSPORT). The only ones that expressly bypass GNG wholesale are NPROF and NGEO, and the only ones I've seen where failing the SNG is successfully used as a deletion criterion despite meeting GNG are NPOL and certain cases of NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You are leaving out the achiecement-based criteria in NBIO and NMUSIC, some of which we have previously discussed, which also bypass GNG, as well as the restrictions for sourcing in NBASIC compared to GNG which make the former more restrictive. You are also leaving out the NOT-based prohibitions in NBIO and NFILM, which produce deletions on a pretty consistent basis. If people were in the habit of creating articles within the domain of NNUMBER, I'm sure we would see plenty of deletions there too. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay TL;DR but questions like this are discussed routinely at WP:AFD. IME, there's not a closed-form answer. I suggest participating in some WP:AFD discussions on topics you're familiar with to get a sense of how the process works and which way the wind is blowing. WP:AFC works under the shadow of WP:AFD as the overall goal here is to accept drafts that are not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng I've actually never seen the argument (that a source can contribute to GNG even if it doesn't meet all of the GNG criteria) at AfD. Usually if editors are trying to keep a subject who doesn't have any independent SIGCOV they make their case through ANYBIO or BASIC, or through IAR, rather than claiming GNG expressly permits non-independent/non-SIGCOV/non-secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay I've seen editors make strained arguments that iffy sources are actually reliable. It's pretty clear that WP:42 requires significant coverage in reliable sources so this is an even more strained argument. ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think there's a basic misunderstanding--that we decide on notability strictly according to the written guidelines. We decide on the bais of our interpretation of the guidelines--sometimes this will indeed be an agreement to use a guidline literally, but even so there are always edge cases and special circumstances. More commonly, we use our individual understanding of what we think to be the correct interpretations, and fortunately these very often do agree. Sometimes they do not, and I think a great many of us make a holistic judgment: does this article belong in WP? And then if others disagree, we look for whatever arguments might support our intuitive positions--or, for that mater, our intuitive prejudices. An as a final resort we have the most important policy of all: IAR--we can in practice include whatever we have a majority of interested people to include, (Butthisis a discussion for WT:N, not here.

That's because for the purposes of afC , none of this matters. We do not decide on notability at AfC. The only role ofAfC is to predict what the decision would be at AfD. This is completely different from the way we discuss at AfD, which is where the decisions are made. At AfC, it is possible to be objective and for reviewers of very different viewpoints to decide in a uniform manner. If I encounter a draft whee I thin we ought to have an article, but I know that any article will almost certainly be deleted, I ought not accept it, however wrong I think the afd decision would be. If I encounter a draft which I know from experience will probably be accepted, however disgraceful I think it would be in an encyclopedia. The role of AfC is not to make decisions, but prediction, and the only way to learn it is to see what actually happens to articles at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@DGG, while I agree with most of this I'll note that I do think it is important at AfD for editors to be on the same page when it comes to what kind of sources can count toward GNG. In most cases differences in interpretation would be moot as more obvious presence/absence of sourcing would be apparent, but in situations where the merit of a topic really does come down to two "GNG sources" existing (as happens in a lot of athlete AfDs, for example), if one of the two sources contains SIGCOV but is not independent, and the other is independent but only contains 90 words on the subject, we should be in agreement over whether either can actually contribute to GNG at all, individually or together. We should also agree on whether being listed as a recipient of a major award in an announcement issued by the awarding organization counts as "SIGCOV" for the purposes of GNG, and whether the announcement itself is actually an independent source.

Also, I brought this to AfC only because it had a big "ask us a question" button at the top of the page, at a time when I wanted uninvolved editors' input, so I figured a venue staffed by editors knowledgeable of the guidelines would be a better place than some noticeboard for this purpose. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

JoelleJay, One problem is that the definition of acce[table sources uses terms like reliable, third party, independent and substantial. All of these terms are terms of art here, with special meanings, and the ir exact meaning in a given situation is what most of the contested AfD s usually come down to. The best example I know of, is WP:NCORP, whose current version specifies sources limited to such things as initial financing were ruled unacceptable. This at least is one of our few specifications that is unambiguous to actually work--but the guideline defining it cam after many years of informally using the criterion--the actual change in our practice came first, and then the written guideline was amended to match what we were doing. Athlete is different-- an example where the basic guideline was only recently changed, in this case not due to prior practical afd decisions, but to a general consensus that our coverage was excessively wide; the exact meaning of the change will now be seen by what we do at AfD. Fortunately for me, this is not my field,, and I don't myself have to decide my own position here. In general, the only answer I can give is it depends, on such factors as the authoritativeness of the sources, the degree of reliability in this particular field, and the extent to which the ccoverage is not significance. In most other fields we have accepted that a single authoritative source showing the individual is clearly notable is sufficient, but in practice if there's one that does that we can generally find others. In some areas we are particularly stringent, such as negative BLP, and I think there's a general agreement about this. For me, part of the fun at WP is dealing with ambiguous situations and trying to make a convincing argument one way or another. Unambiguous situations don't really attract me as much; but fortunately all of us like doing different things. But as I;ve said since I started here, if we really wanted to eliminate ambiguous situations, we would abandon the GNG and decide by consensus/vote/compromise upon unambiguous measurable criteria.

And I thank you and everyone here for this very interesting discussion, quite regardless of were we have had it. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think all of us are in agreement with the fact there is a continuum along each of the dimensions of notability, and that it's important to consider this in our analyses. But generally in my experience when a holistic approach is appropriate it's in cases where there are a good number of sources already, including at least one that everyone can agree is independent, secondary, and reliable.

Then again, since I very much identify with For me, part of the fun at WP is dealing with ambiguous situations and trying to make a convincing argument one way or another, I participate almost exclusively in contentious (STEM) academic and sportsperson AfDs -- I have very little experience with the more straightforward cases, especially in other areas. So my perception of what "matters the most" is: (for academics) in the absence of meeting other NPROF/GNG criteria, how does the person's citation profile stack up to others in their subfield? how are respected editors with real-world experience in the relevant field (like you, David, Russ, Hannes) !voting? and (for athletes) does coverage go beyond routine transactional reports and Q&A interviews? And so those are the things I look at first for every AfD, even though they might not be as applicable to less ambiguous cases. Nevertheless, typically the only point of argument (for non-NPROF) is in the significance of coverage -- I've found that differences in opinion on reliability and independence are rarely the crucial deciding factors. And out of the 1000+ AfDs I've participated in or looked at, I've never seen someone arguing that a source that everyone agrees isn't secondary/independent should still count towards GNG, which is why that position was so astounding to me and why I took it here to ask. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Adi_Reddy_Boddu

I just reviewed this draft and declined it for advertising and a copyvio (which I've since removed). However, I'm concerned that this draft could be being used as a web host, since from the pageviews report it's gotten around 250 views since it was created a few days ago. The user who created it is called "Fame digital" which sounds like a UPE marketing company. Would this draft qualify for U5/G11 deletion? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify for U5 because the U criteria can only be used in userspace. I don't personally think it qualifies for G11 because the article doesn't have a hypey, promotional tone, rather I feel it has a factual tone. However you could try putting a G11 tag on it, perhaps an admin might disagree with me and find it promotional enough to G11. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

New user getting involved

There's a new user (< 24 hrs) Musiclaborotry behaving a bit strangely with regards to a couple of pending drafts. I've just messaged them on their User talk:Musiclaborotry page to query these. Maybe someone else could take a look? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone who was paid to create an article about an individual, but who has absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works. Luckily, Wikipedia has a rollback function. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, @Johannes Maximilian, the user page says they are here to create "new article about South African new and upcoming artists". Obviously WP doesn't want articles about new and upcoming artists -- Musiclaborotry apparently doesn't know this. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Any well-sourced content worthy of an article in an encyclopedia(!) is welcome on Wikipedia. Whilst new artists (if they have been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources) have a chance at an article, upcoming artists cannot be discussed in an article in an encyclopedia. That is, simply speaking, because encyclopedias only describe things that are considered to be "well-known" (published) knowledge. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This user has now 'approved' their own draft, Uncle Waffles, even issuing an AfC notice to that effect on their talk page. I can't tell whether they genuinely think that's how you do things here, or whether they're trying to game the system; any queries are just met with counter-questions and requests. I don't think there's anything there quite worth of bringing this to ANI, but it is odd all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User information template to invite people to use the wizard to create articles?

Is there a user invite template for inviting people to use the article wizard? I notice {{uw-wizard}}, but it isn't fit for purposes other than a page being created. People often write a new article on top of an existing location where it is not be be requested (such as at wP:FFU or WP:AFC/R, or elsewhere by overwriting something). In such a case {{uw-wizard}} is not appropriate, since the page in question has not been nominated for deletion. I'd like a similar template that doesn't suggest that I've nominated a page I haven't for deletion. It could say reverted instead of nominated for deletion.

Does such a template (or of similar functionality, or basic invitation to the wizard) exist? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way of marking a submission pending a request for comment?

I was just looking at Draft:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire which was created from the page Greece–Turkey relations. When I went to the talk page I saw that the article is being considered for GA status and in the talk the desire to slim down the page was mentioned which triggered the creation of this page. With the Greece-Turkey page as is the Byzantine page would fail a RfD with a result of merge to the Greece-Turkey page but with the re-org then it would survive. My preferred approach with be to decline and say to come back when there is a consensus for the split but perhaps there is someone with a better approach. I have left a comment on the draft but will be leaving it untouched for the moment. Gusfriend (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The submitter clarified that there had been a long term discussion, it would serve multiple pages and has expanded the page to cover a wider area so I have approved it. Gusfriend (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal request for AFC review

Hi all, Can we review the draft article (AFC) upon request placed on our talk page? Fade258 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't, because I don't see why I should prioritize the people asking over the people waiting patiently in the queue, but there's no rule against it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your opinion regarding this matter. Thanks! Fade258 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Rick Murray and Rick Murray

I would appreciate if someone would take a second or third look at this draft and this redirect. I don't think that the need to look at these pages is urgent, but would still appreciate another review. I declined Draft:Rick Murray as not containing enough information to establish creative notability. The subject may be notable, in which case the originator can expand the draft and resubmit it. However, there is a name collision, because Rick Murray appears to be a redirect to a list of fictional characters. The history shows that there once was an article for the character, and it was cut down to a redirect. So far, that is fine. If the draft BLP is accepted, the redirect should be deleted, because the hatnote that I have put on the draft will take its place. However, the problem is that Rick Murray isn't in the list of fictional characters. This seems to have been an error at some point in the history of the list of characters. I have tagged the list of characters as needing cleanup, and have put a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Degrassi task force for another look. Does anyone else have any other suggestions for what to do? I haven't encountered this particular anomaly in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Going through wikiblame, it was at one time listed, Special:Permalink/297860928, at least up till sometime in 2009. Running out of time to look at the sequence of the page histories of both list and the redirect, but there should be something along the lines of content split and then content merge not being followed up since Rick Murray turned into a redirect may be possible.

If the draft is accepted, I would move the redirect to Rick Murray (fictional character) to save the page history, and move the draft into the there. If the entry is restored in the list, I would still move the redirect, turn 'Rick Murray' into a disambiguation page, and move the draft to Rick Murray (businessman) or something similar. The page views of the redirect page is not trival, hence I am unable to evaluate if the draft or the fictional character could be the primary topic.

I had done a similar move, at Draft:Hegen. Hegen was a redirect to Brădeni, an alternate name, while the draft was about a company of the same name. However, as the page views for the redirect was trival (less then view a day), I decided to move the draft into Hegen. As an acknowledgement to the history of the redirection, I left a hatnote on the new article to point to Bradeni. It also helped that Hegen was mentioned in Bradeni article to justify the hatnote. So far, I have not received any complaints/feedback about the move. – robertsky (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion and question

I must admit to sometimes feeling dispirited by the graph with the number of outstanding requests at the top of this page and I was wondering if we would have a chart of number of AfC reviews undertaken by day alongside it or elsewhere in the project. This would help highlight how much work is being done by the project.

The question that I have is, is there somewhere I can keep track of my accept / decline submission numbers (and possibly the numbers for the whole project). Again, I think that people would feel better about the rejection of their submissions if they knew that X% of pages were rejected. Gusfriend (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There is work done currently to keep track of individual AfC activities. See: https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/pull/232 – robertsky (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend: this tracks at least some of your AfC activity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If there is a genuine desire, I can bring back the monthly summaries, which includes comparisons of submissions-to-reviews amongst other things. I stopped mainly because no one seemed to be using or otherwise indicating that they found it useful. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, monthly AFC backlog drive should be created in every month if possible. Fade258 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If we have a monthly backlog drive, then it no longer becomes a backlog drive and just becomes... normal AFC reviewing? also not sure how that relates to my comment in any way. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ohh, then on that particular monthly backlog drive, we could add the draft for review which has been pending from over 3-4 months, this helps us to review old ones, by only reviewing new we generally ignore the old submissions. Fade258 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

is this [25] more what you were looking for? Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And here's the total we all reviewed last week. 1311 with a 13% accept rate, apparently. Happy to tweak this for other time periods if anyone's interested. Rusalkii (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, looks like you (Theroadislong) reviewed slightly under 9% of all submissions last week, whereas I have fallen off the map entirely. That's what coding does to you, I guess, you get too lazy for real work . Rusalkii (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. That largely answers my questions and it is good to know that my rate of acceptance is not out of line with that of others. I like the report about 1311 last week with 13% acceptance and think that it would be great for that sort of information to be provided to users who submit something so that (a) they understand that the hard working people at AfC are hard working going through things and (b) given the 13% rate don't take it personally if your request gets declined.Gusfriend (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

compact-ambox

Page watchers may be interested (i.e. know more than me) in Template talk:AfC submission#compact-ambox. Please leave a comment there if that use looks wrong (or right). Izno (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)