Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed

• Sorted
• NPP Browser

• Easy
• Reports

Reviewers

• Resources
• School
• Top

Curation tool
SuggestionsCoordination

• Talk
• Awards
• Newsletter

• Backlog drives

NPP backlog

Articles

21166 ↓249

Oldest article

18 years old

Redirects

45839

Oldest redirect

6 months old

Article reviews

1950

Redirect reviews

3890

• There is a very large articles backlog
• The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑644 since last week)
• There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of July 20, 2026

LDS sources and notability for an LDS temple

What do we think about this article? Cagayan de Oro Philippines Temple

There is decent sourcing but it is all LDS newspapers or websites. Are we having it or not?--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This has turned into a bit of an edit war between a full article (imho purely promotional) and a BLAR. The last time it was a full article, I tagged it as WP:PROD but I see it’s now gone back to being a redirect. I should probably now wait for the article to reappear and go for WP:AFD. What do we normally do in this situation? If we happen to review an unsuitable article while it is an article, it goes through a draft or deletion route. If, however, it keeps being BLAR, do we send it to WP:RFD while it’s a redirect, or wait until someone reverts it back to an article so we can use AFD? --Northernhenge (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A little late replying here, but LDS temples invariably become notable by virtue of independent coverage shortly after if not before their dedications. If a page is created too soon, I don’t think it’s worth the time of AfDing it; just make sure it’s sourced and otherwise properly laid out. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible NPR removal request

There is a discussion at WT:AFC about some problematic reviews by an NPR, which might have the knock-on effect of having their NPR perm revoked. Please feel free to join in the conversation. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the proposal looking at discussion and per their poor understanding at AFD. No one under 80% success rate of AFD should be given NPR right. The questioned NPR have a clear problem of WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Zne0us Phenix (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Mine was just over 80 last time I looked, but if I wanted to increase it I’d find discussions where the consensus was already very clear and add the obvious !vote. The raw figures don’t say much on their own. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I will comment that I am not enthusiastic about them as an NPP or AfC reviewer based upon a few draftifications/AfD comments of theirs I have seen (for academics). The log of their AfD votes is certainly very discouraging, particularly as most of them are when they are the nom. I am also not so happy with the fact that they have not spent much time improving articles; I would prefer it if editors applying to be NPP had a record of creating a few articles, ideally up to A or GA level. Doing it yourself is perhaps the best way to learn how hard it can be.

I lean towards letting their NPP rights expire on June 2nd, and not be renewed or made permanent. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

AI edit summary log

I have a bot which runs through all recent changes and flags edit summaries which it thinks are AI generated. As noted at the top of the log page, the log itself is vulnerable to false positives and should never be cited as evidence for accusations of AI, but I think it doesn't have that many false positives anymore. It might be of interest to RCP/NPP to facilitate early AI detection. (And since I don't think RCP has a good talk page, I'm posting here - feel free to let me know if wrong place etc) Fermiboson (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WT:AIC seems like the obvious place to post this. lp0 on fire () 08:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

UPE-block cleanup

Hi folks, I've just blocked GreenRedFlag for UPE following a COIVRT ticket. The UPE involves their AFC accepts and their edits, so there's quite a bit to go through. I'll revoke NPR but would appreciate it if others handled the rest. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, they seem to also be a habitual LLM misuser and have used LLMs to respond to AfC submissions. – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I have undone all of GreenRedFlag's NPP actions. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

How to deal with incivility after nominating article for deletion?

I nominated an article for deletion for failing WP:NPOL. The article had been published five hours prior, had no draft in progress tag, and consisted of two sentence.

In the AFD, the article's creator has repeatedly attacked me and my competence in the AFD, accusing me of camping NPP threads and abusing my privilege as a NPP/not using it constructively , , .

How should I handle this? EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37: First, I'd recommend not engaging with them further as they seem to be dialling up the heat a bit with every reply. (You might have figured this out already.) I am contemplating a response to them because they seem to have some confusion about the purpose of New Page Patrol (it's in the name!). Is this your first interaction with this user? —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh It is my first interaction with them. They have 16k edits, so they aren't a new user either. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Their responses to you are shockingly rude and arrogant. They claim that you "camp[ed] NPP feeds" (that's exactly what NPP is) to AfD a page that was "very clearly undergoing expansion/creation".

Taking a look at the article history, however, it is clear that this not the case. You nominated the page for deletion five hours after creation (which, funnily enough, is also five hours after they last edited it). They did nothing for 3 whole days, at which point they added the under construction tag. They then waited another 2 days (5 days after the page – apparently "clearly undergoing expansion" – was created) to add any new content (namely, one sentence of prose and a bare URL).

They're either being blissfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest – let's hope it is the former! aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Dclemens gives good advice, though I do think the last comment is bordering on a civil personal attack. I'll keep an eye on the AfD but hopefully they don't continue to goad you.

I have drafted a response regarding the "one week" confusion, which I'll keep on ice in case it's needed. Edit count isn't everything; having created a lot of content doesn't necessarily mean that someone understands the deletion policies or NPP workflows. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh I don't plan on engaging with that AFD further. I'll only end up risking a WP:UNCIVIL violation myself lol. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could offer a brief overview of the new page review process on the user’s talk page. It seems like they had a misconception about deletion processes (the bit about a week is perhaps a conflation with the minimum time for a deletion discussion with the window before a discussion can be opened). But you’re under no obligation to do so, and I don’t think further reply in the AfD will be helpful or on topic. The closer will disregard incorrect assumptions about AfD processes.

One piece of advice—even though an hour is the minimum, it doesn’t hurt to wait a day or to to file an AfD. Some editors don’t user draftspace to build articles, and as long as there’s not material warranting speedy deletion, there is no deadline and reviewers have no need to rush an AfD. I think the comment on the spirit versus the law here is reasonable. My usual practice if I patrol a brand new article that I don’t believe meets notability guidelines is to draftify it, provided it meets those criteria, or to tag it for notability concerns and come back in a day or two and consider an afd if there have been no improvements.

As for the editor’s other comments, I don’t think they’re personal attacks. They disagree with how you’ve used the NPP permission, and that’s a behavioural analysis, whether flawed or not. It does look like a failure of AGF on their part, but unless you’re encountering ABF from this editor elsewhere and repeatedly, I’d suggest letting it go. You’ve made your point, others can see it clearly, and you will encounter worse treatment as a new page reviewer. Thanks and good luck! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Usually, I probably would have waited longer, but I'm currently on a one-month trial for NPP (expires on June 1st, reapplied on May 21st but still waiting to here back), and given the ongoing New Pages Patrol Backlog Drive/finding the page very late at night, if I waited to AFD it, it would have almost certainly been handled by another NPPer. If I am not decisive enough in my decisions, I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term. I'm also just aggressive for nominating articles failing WP:NPOL for deletion. I did not find any sourcing online that showed that the candidate met WP:NPOL (or WP:GNG as a CEO), so expanding the article wouldn't have made a difference either way for me because the article, in my view, was about a subject that didn't pass notability guidelines.

My main issue is that even if they disagreed with my judgment in this case, they are making assumptions about my entire record (which is over 200 pages curated at this point). EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I don't think this is even in my patrol log because I do AFDs through twinkle. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a note as another NPPer, not an admin: I get the sense of urgency, but I expect anyone reviewing your permission request will be looking for quality as well as quantity. (And they'll know to look at your Twinkle-generated XfD and CSD logs too.) I don't think you've done anything wrong here, but it's best not to make hasty nominations to meet a deadline or quota. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh To be clear, I am careful while patrolling. I just don't wait if I feel confident in a decision. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't review something just because you think you need to just to keep the permission. Looking at your logs, you have 175 entries with "marked as reviewed". I am not an admit but that is well above what I would expect is needed to maintain the permission and so only the quality of the reviews matter now. I am not offering an opinion of the reviews just saying I think I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term is not a very healthy mindset. Skynxnex (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Skynxnex To be clear, I am careful when reviewing. I was just explaining why I didn’t wait another day or two before nominating for deletion. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, others have responded to If I am not decisive enough in my decisions, I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term already, but your own responses to them make me think you haven't quite understood what the issue is here, so, speaking as an admin: acting with undue haste and/or getting into conflicts and handling them poorly/defensively is a reason to not renew your perm, and indeed one of the most common reasons why I don't, or why I revoke it. Meanwhile, the number of reviews is barely important at all. If the reviewing admin doesn't think you've made enough reviews to make a solid decision, they can always give you another trial. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I do understand why acting too hastily is bad (more likely to make mistakes/miss something). I do tend to be cautious when reviewing (i.e., if I mark an article is reviewed, it's either A) In the easy reviews section of NPP (checking AFD nominated articles for copyright and any other issues before approving, or having a filtered view of politicians or AFC accepted) or a topic I am more knowledgable about (American sports, American politics, or PIA). If I am unsure about an article, I move on and let others handle it later.

In hindsight, the If I am not decisive enough in my decisions, I will end up not being an active enough patroller that would merit being granted NPP permissions long term really doesn't sound great on my end. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, I view being attacked for my reviews as part of the job. Indeed, I would classify what is in that AfD as quite mild, nothing to be concerned about. I only rarely review political articles, but would not be surprised to find them to be more contentious. Personally I might have draftified that particular article, but that is just my approach. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Drafts tagged with no citations even though they do have citations?

I'm an AfC reviewer, and I often filter the new pages feed to look for drafts that have no citations. There were two showing when I last checked with that filter, Draft:Dinesh Krishnan B. and Draft:Institute of Advanced Radiosurgery, but they both have citations. Why are they showing up with the "no citations" filter? Thanks.

I previously asked this at the Teahouse, and was advised to post it here. Someone said it might be because both drafts were marked with having "unbalanced ref tags". Could that be why? In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

In general (not necessarily in these examples) , it would be worth looking at the edit history to see if someone has added sources but left the tag in place. Maybe they forgot about it, or maybe they weren’t very convinced the sources they’d found were the best. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorting the New Page Feed by username?

Is there a way to sort the New Page Feed list by username? I can do so on the "Sorted" lists. Seeking that same function for the New Page Feed. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You can search by username, not sure about sorting though. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The New Page Feed doesn't have that option. You can do it in nppbrowser.toolforge.org though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That tool looks useful. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Use of LLM in AfD nom

Do we have a procedure for AfD noms that were created using LLM, beyond collapsing the text? A case in point is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targuist Sniper created by @Rudshoyes, who I just gave a level 4 warning to due to this and other highly dubious editing. (I may be a bit too tolerant in holding off from WP:ANI.) Ldm1954 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You can speedy close it if you think it's been done in bad faith, the nomination is terrible, or whatever other aggravating factor you observe. That's not to say you can't speedy close an AI-generated AFD if it's "innocent", of course. But personally I'd tend towards favouring an extra helping of AGF if I could manage it. AFD looks complicated and I can sympathize with someone thinking an LLM will help them "do it right".

Of course, LLM-generated AFDs are often started by UPE sockpuppets. So there's that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I recently created articles

Hello, I recently created several shopping mall articles: Grande Boulevard Mall (Florida), Village Fair Mall, Beau Monde Mall, Tamarac Square, Old Mill Shopping Center, and Fashion Outlet Kraków. I have tried to use reliable sources and keep the wording neutral. Could someone please take a look when possible and let me know if there are any sourcing, notability, or style issues I should fix? Thank you. Louloureagan9 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Louloureagan9: This is not the place to ask that new articles be reviewed. They are on the list of "to be reviewed, new articles", but there is a considerable backlog (15,855 as of this moment) and one of the volunteers will get to the articles when, as and if they can. You'll just need to be patient. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Additional opinions on Tarun Souradeep (astrophysicist)

The article Tarun Souradeep (astrophysicist) has just been created by @Yourplacetime, an editor with 30 edits who has, to date, only created this article and Chris Jai Alex, both directly in main. This article is a minor modification of Draft:Tarun Souradeep which I rejected on March 8th as it was being serially resubmitted by an SPA or IPs with no attempt to resolve issues which included COI & LLM. I am not good at recognizing UPE or Socks, but this looks very dubious. I would appreciate input from others who have more experience with tricky cases.

Courtesy ping of @RangersRus, LuniZunie, Thilsebatti, Pythoncoder, and Theroadislong: who commented on the prior version. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Send it to AFD, then it can be CSD'd and salted if it keeps getting recreated. That's what the path should be, if an article is moved from draft to mainspace (which this basically was), it should go through AFD rather than being re-draftified. If you think an SPI is warranted, then you can also create one for that. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

From a very quick glance, this could be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fostera12.​ – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @LuniZunie, funnily enough I was just looking into the same user myself. I'm not sure it's Fostera12, but there are a few other accounts I think they're likely connected to. I might try to write up an SPI report if I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all. The issue of SPI & UPE is not something I know how to check, so I will leave that to one or more of you.

Concerning notability, that is tricky but IMO he just about passes WP:NPROF; this has just now (while I was asleep) been confirmed at AfD. The main issue was LLM and bad structure that was not being repaired. As an article the sources now seem to verify although there is some refbombing. I am going to leave a COI tag as it could probably do with more checking, and I think there is little doubt about a COI of some sort.

Courtesy ping of @SunloungerFrog who also just did a little cleaning. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a "Needs Figures" tag?

I have run across a page with a large amount of text that could do with some Figures/Illustrations to help explain. Searching I cannot find an appropriate main page (not talk) tag. Did I miss it? If there is nothing would others find one useful? Ldm1954 (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

as you indicated there seems to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Image_requested (I can't find anything else)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Template:Improve images any help here? The page includes a number of other media request templates. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is the one I needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Grammar in curation toolbar

In tagging, under "Revision Deletion", the toolbar says it is used for "Certain revisions of the page violates copyright policies." Should that be "...violate copyright policies"? --Northernhenge (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

4 months and noindex tag still on page

Hello this article was created 4 months ago and still has a noindex tag. Could a reviewer please take a look? Extended phase graph NathanBeaumont (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's still waiting for review by WP:NPP. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed on the Help forum; see Wikipedia:Help desk#4 months and article still has noindex tag . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Igbo regalia and headdresses

I recently okayed a draft WP:AfC article, Igbo regalia and headdresses. Another editor has since drawn my attention to the fact that part of it may be an attempt to recreate a recently deleted AI article on Ichafu headdresses. I don't feel entirely confident on this subject (plus the article has been considerably added to since I okayed it), but I would really welcome more eyes on the article, if anyone has time to take a look. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

SafariScribe's NPP/AfC reviews

In light of this discussion at AN/I in which a new page reviewer had their perm pulled and is now blocked from article and draftspaces, should SafariScribe's articles reviewed this year be marked as unreviewed for further review? These reviewed articles include their AfC acceptances. Not sure the mechanism to do this but given the potential scale of the need for re-review I wanted to start the conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the obvious UPE articles should be deleted (created by a single-purpose TA, accepted by SafariScribe <10 mins after submission), newly accepted drafts should be sent back to AfC, and everything else should be marked unpatrolled. InfernoHues (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues, is there a complete list of those UPE articles available yet? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, there's Quarry:query/106800 but that data will need to be manipulated somewhat. Maybe @BilledMammal, who created the query would be willing to help. InfernoHues (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Sorry for the double ping, I wrote the query myself: Quarry:query/106829, there're ~15 articles that match the criteria above. InfernoHues (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That only checks AfC accepts though, not NPP reviews. InfernoHues (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues I looked at the logs, and SafariScribe's reviews tended to be articles he accepted at AfC. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that SafariScribe has responded in that thread (says they're busy offwiki and will "address this shortly"). We can probably wait a few days for any mass action, I expect a more definite resolution to that thread once SafariScribe has said their piece. Rusalkii (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I have sent two of the articles that they approved to AFD. I know that is only two of a large number of articles that are now doubtful, but I am being careful and detailed in my nominations, unlike the immediate acceptance of the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I PRODed Israel Fagbemigun. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ugh, SafariScribe has been CBANNED and also blocked based on additional COIVRT evidence. While I hate doing this when NPP has a backlog that is so huge I think that means we have to add all 1500-ish pages they reviewed to the queue since none of them can be trusted per normal procedure for this sort of thing. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Miranda's Rescue

Can someone review Miranda's Rescue? I want Google to pick this article ASAP - because of the horrific nature of animal abuse. Cinaroot (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

After a quick look I am very much unconvinced this is an appropriate article and topic. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and there’s no evidence here that this company has gotten any coverage beyond this sad situation. NCORP requires more than a momentary spurt of coverage. There is no deadline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But the situation is severe - there is significant media attention, and I think it will be remembered as a prime example of animal abuse, and we should document it.

When I used AI - to list major examples of animal abuse in the last 2 decades - nothing significant as this was listed. Cinaroot (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked at our guidelines. i think it meets WP:ILLCON WP:SUBSTANTIAL and WP:CORPDEPTH Cinaroot (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I've sent the article to AfD for review. I agree with the concerns above that the organization may not meet our notability standards. Zeibgeist (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Rapid reviewing, this looks like a problem

By chance I had a look at the curation log and I see several NPP editors who are marking pages as reviewed in under one second. I don't think this is reasonable. Maybe we need some code (or maybe a bot) that will periodically check for things like this, then send a message to the NPP reviewer. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It is sometimes possible to make a very quick review that is valid, especially if you are picking options from the list that look "easy". Lists, species and translated pages can often be reviewed really quickly. In my view, the very last of our problems is that we are getting through the backlog too fast.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

BTW, how are you getting the second thing, my view of it only shows minutes?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I was extrapolating from the numbers with the same time; in under one second was perhaps a bit too much hyperbole. While I acknowledge that the backlog is an issue, rapid-fire reviewing can be just shoving issues down the line. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it actually is possible to see times in seconds: go to Special:Preferences, select "Appearance", and pick the last option under "Date format". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes I do reviews in batches and then mark them as approved back to back. Could just be a quirk of queue management preferences. Nothing to be suspicious about unless the reviews are defective. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Under one second sounds exaggerated, I will regularly do things in multiple tabs and mark multiple as reviewed at once and quite often I will pick pages which are either easy to give tags or draftily or easy to quickly mark as reviewed, I don't think we necessarily need to blanket prohibit it so much as review those who are doing it quickly to make sure the quality of reviews isn't being undermined Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 22:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, the "under one second" was hyperbole.

I guess one can mark them as reviewed in a batch, even though it takes longer to review. Probably I am slow, it takes me at least a minute or two with reading, checking a source or two, deciding about tags, writing a note, checking the projects etc.

Maybe a better test would be (probably not possible) whether pages are being rapidly reviewed and few to none are having any tags added. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, I actually thought we did have an edit filter for rapidly accepted drafts. I agree that it's a strong warning sign. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Conflict with WP:PAY

WP:PAY states you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly; while the tutorial says Move the article to draftspace and inform the creator that they must (financial COI) or should (non-financial COI) use AfC. I mean I'd love to see COI, especially paid, be required to use AFC but sadly it's just a should for both. If someone here decides to push it somewhere to change the guideline to state must for paid please inform me as I would support it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

must (financial COI) or should (non-financial COI) means AfC is required for paid editors since that's a kind of financial COI. lp0 on fire () 08:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I think @Jerodlycett's point is that WP:PAY (a behavioural guideline) does not say paid editors must create articles through AfC, it says should. Likewise Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (the policy) also says should. So Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol is in conflict by saying must, and similarly elsewhere Editing with a financial conflict of interest ('paid editing') is even more tightly regulated, with disclosure mandated by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and AfC mandated by local policy - local policy does not seem to mandate AfC. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. lp0 on fire () 08:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've also once stumbled upon this so thanks for bringing this up. I too would love to see PAID being forced to go through AfC - so how likely would an RfC in this area end up as a bloodbath? Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that there must be prior art, in terms of discussions about what paid editors should and should not do, and whether the view of the community is better expressed as must and must not. I found Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 6 § Proposed RfC on adding prior review which was not formally closed with a conclusion. My sense is that a laser-focused RFC on the specific point about paid editors' new articles going through AFC is more likely to have a conclusive result than a more general one about further constraining paid editors in article space. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the "should" language than "must" language. Someone who is a disclosed paid editor, who clearly discloses their paid edits, and whose edits are not found to be so promotional they need to be draftified - why would we waste their time and ours forcing them through AFC? The ToS requirement is that paid editing must be disclosed. The reality is that most paid editors really suck, and so we draftify their stuff and tell them to try again. But just as the map is not the territory, the territory isn't the map, either. I would strongly encourage NPRs to use language like "Because you are a paid editor, please send your drafts through AFC" when dealing with paid editors who, uh, suck at this. It explains why, without overstating the policy. And it doesn't really give room for discussion or wiki-lawyering. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

NPP Guideline Proposal Regarding AfC Drafts

During the recent ANI case regarding SafariScribe , I noticed that almost all of his AfC acceptances were immediately marked as patrolled by SafariScribe. This process likely allows for UPE or other similar actions to go unnoticed for longer since there is not another Wikipedian reviewing the article. Should there be a restriction against NPPs patrolling an AfC draft that they accepted? EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought there already was one; if not then there should be. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 The current guideline at AfC is this: Marking your own AFC accepts as reviewed: If you have the new page patrol right or the autopatrolled right, and you accept a draft, you are permitted to mark it as reviewed, even though you also did the AFC accept. However if the draft is borderline in some way such as notability, it is a good practice to leave it unreviewed, or mark it as unreviewed, to get an additional set of eyes on it. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I don't like that. At most I would say that you should wait a month. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be excess bureaucracy. I'm not super-active at AfC but when I am I always mark the page as reviewed (or it's automatically marked as reviewed since I'm autopatrolled). We shouldn't create extra bureaucracy and extra work for patrollers just because an AfC/NPP reviewer was abusing their tools. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I will disagree, as I think 2 pairs of eyes are needed. That view is unrelated to the ANI case. (I am fairly active at AfC.) Ldm1954 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that 2 pairs of eyes is a good idea for any case that isn't totally unambiguous, for NPRs who aren't also AP. Actually, I too thought our guidelines at AFC were more strictly worded than this already. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Let me add something more about why I think a second set of eyes are needed. I view AfC acceptance as a lower level than NPP, and I believe it should be that way. For AfC there should be a good enough case for notability plus no major errors. While a few errors can be corrected by the reviewer, not all can be simply. I will often accept an AfC and include a few {{cn}} and maybe one or two other tags. There should be a second stage to check that corrections have been made. Plus some of us are better at detecting AI, I am not great. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In practice this is very much the case, AfC seems to be much softer on notability than we are at NPP.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• There is an inconsistency here. Some AFC reviewers, self included, are not NPP, so all of my reviews need a second set of eyes (and @Ldm1954 has queried a couple of my acceptances) and of the top 5 reviewers over the last 12 months, 3 of the 5 AFC reviewers are NPP. Of my 4,000 AFC reviews in the last 12 months (823 acceptances), three have been reverted by NPP, though one of which I think was wrong (and didn't involve Ldm1954), the other two were genuine grey areas. So different reviews are getting quite different NPP treatment purely due to who is picking up the AFC review. Overall it would be better if all AFC gets a second NPP check, since the criterias are different. AFC's check is essentially "has this got a 50% survival factor at AFD?", but I accept there is a workload / materiality balancing act to the struck. AFD, I guess, remains a backstop regardless. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Mention Refideas?

The {{Refideas}} talk page tag can be useful for listing sources that do exist but cannot be easily incorporated into the text, to establish notability per WP:NEXIST. Apparently even experienced Wikipedia editors have never heard of this template, even though it seems incredibly useful for articles with borderline notability. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)