Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help/2018 1

Looking for AfC feedback

I was given access to the helper script yesterday and I've reviewed seven pages in the last days using the script: Draft:Austin Rogers (Jeopardy! contestant), Draft:Artem Mirolevich, Draft:Between The Rain, Draft:Sabina Fluxà Thienemann, Draft:Ryan Held (American football), User:WWIAF/sandbox, Draft:Alex de Rijke. Of the group, I've accepted one, declined five, and speedied one for blatant copyvios. Could I get an experienced reviewer to look over my work? I know something about what I'm doing but could use the feedback from someone who understands this more fully. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I should add that before granted access to the script, I manually approved and moved George Boris Townsend and put it up for DYK, because it was pretty good. BusterD (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just from a quick glance, your declines look good, as does the accept. I appreciate the depth of feedback you're giving. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! A couple nits from me. ~Kvng (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I added an an additional comment to Draft:Austin Rogers (Jeopardy! contestant) suggesting a WP:REDIRECT for this subject may be appropriate.
  • There is no requirement for inline citations for new articles. Focus on WP:V and WP:GOLDENRULE for sourcing. A lot of NPP and AFC reviewers are rejecting BLP and company submissions for WP:PROMOTIONAL concerns of any magnitude even though it is rarely a successful WP:DEL-REASON in itself. You can choose your own level of tolerance for this but I would suggest that WP:STUBIFY is usually the best AfC authors (who frequently have COI or other issues) are able to achieve in addressing these complaints. If you ask for pure WP:NPOV we're likely end up with an abandoned draft and disgruntled author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Um... Kvng, there is an absolute necessity for inline citations in biographies of living persons. While they are not vital for other types of articles, I please ask that you make the distinction very clear in the future so that newer reviewers are not confused. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware of that requirement. Thanks for the correction. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Stevenpanameno

The editor Stevenpanameno has the following drafts:

  • Draft:Haylor!(web series) which he has been working on since January 2015 and has only submitted for review once, in October 2016.
  • Draft:SJL (web series) which he has been working on since June 2015 and has only submitted for review once, in October 2016.
  • Draft:Steven Panameno created in August 2017 and declined by me the when it was submitted for review on the day it was created.

Given the clear COI on all three, it appears odd to me that someone would continually edit drafts for so long but make no further attempt to have them accepted. Does this look like using draft space as a webhost? Looking at the YouTube channels, Haylor only has 74 subscribers and the most any of his videos has had is 137 views, so these are obscure subjects never likely to be accepted into mainspace as far as I can see. I don't think I can nominate them at MFD as that's not for notability issues. At the least, I was thinking of asking him what his intention is for the drafts. WP:U5 seems to apply only to userspace, not draftspace? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No response to my message on his talk page, so raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stevenpanameno seemingly using draft space as a web host. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

All Sent to MFD [1] Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

New AfC Reviewer

Just wanted to introduce myself for the project, that I have recently been allowed the use of the script and will be reviewing a few new draft articles. If I do anything wrong, or if there are any issues with my feedback, please let me know. I have only logged a few reviews so far, so if I have missed something; I'd appreciate the heads up. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome. We can use all the help we can get. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Good to have you join us! Welcome. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jigjidsuren_Gombojav

I want some third opinions on this draft. Chrissmad declined apparently because the sources don't have in-depth coverage. I reckoned that he passed ANYBIO and/or coverage would likely be found and thus would likely survive AfD. Thoughts? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

fix ping @Chrissymad: Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition to my previous statements, after doing research myself, I'm finding nothing in the way of independent coverage under his name in english or his native language. Coverage in RS is what establishes notability, not autobios/bio listings on random websites. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, the sources are almost exclusively primary. 3 are his own books, 1 is his dissertation and the actual in-line refs are:
  • IMDB - not RS and not coverage
  • a basic autobio/bio listing - for sources 2 and 3 - not coverage and likely auto-bio
  • an award listing - with no coverage
  • 5 & 6 are an encyclopedia with no sourcing and a self-written work
  • 7 - primary, his own book
  • 8 - another list with no coverage, just his name and an award, which ironically is not listed in his credits on iMDb.
  • 9 & 10 - basic listings
  • 11 I haven't had the opportunity to truly dig in depth to this one, so no comment
  • 12 is an interview
  • 13, self written, so primary and thus not coverage of the individual.
I did my own search (admittedly, not as familiar with the native language) however I came up with almost nothing searching by his name in either language. I'd expect for someone with so many claims in the draft to have some hits.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Chrissymad on this one; most of the sources are just name drops or PRIMARY (an interview and his own writings). Granted, the name drops are in awards list, so they're suitable for inclusion as far as reliability goes, but not so much for a demonstration of notability.
I will note, somewhat cheekily, that it has been resubmitted for review, and if you think it will survive AFD you're welcome to approve it. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Ehh, I know the sources in the article are quite bad, but certainly aren't going to find much especially if you can't read Mongolian. I'll investigate into the people's artist award and see how exclusive it is at-least. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter FWIW, I did try searching for titles under their original name/spelling (non-eng) and his name in Mongolian. I came up with the same amount of usable sources... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we revisit preference of draft space over userspace?

I commonly see completely unsuitable drafts that have been moved to draft space by reviewers under the rubric of draft space being "preferred". Does it make sense to revisit that guidance? Would it not be better if drafts were left in user space in some situations?

  • completely unreferenced
  • autobiographies with no plausible notability
  • very incomplete

Reviewers should exercise some judgment and only move "promising" drafts to Draft: when doing declines — instead of move first, then decline. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it matters too much does it? Either way Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Kind of depends on the reviewer, and I don't think we need to "mandate" anything (instruction creep etc). I know I (and a few others) will decline absolutely god-awful userspace drafts right then and there without moving them, and some people will move userspace drafts without even considering the content first. Either way bad drafts get declined and/or deleted, and other than an extra entry log I don't think it has any overall impact on the project. And, as a cynical view, a piss-poor draft can be resubmitted by a user regardless of where it's located. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
My sense of the general idea expressed here is that it doesn't make much difference where the drafts are located, which I agree with, which is why I asked about whether the policy or the helper tool should express moving to draft space as a "preference". — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple repeated Drafts

Hi all, I just had a question regarding when an article is created in more than one place (Such as several drafts on the same person), such as below:

Draft:Filip Engelman, Draft:Filip Zeljko Engelman, and Draft:Zeljko Filip Engelman (2). Only the last two are by the same creator, but all are regarding the same Footballer. The player would meet WP:NFOOTY, having played in a professional league game.

What would be the best course of action for these drafts, as realistically they aren't referenced very well, but would be unlikely to be deleted on an AfD, and what is the course of action for multiple repeated drafts? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When I see multiple drafts created by the same editor, I generally redirect the older or more-poorly-written one to the better/newer one (note that the newer one might not be as good as the older). This is what I've done with link #2.
In the case of same-person-different-authors, I'd compare the quality of the two. The first draft you linked is not resubmitted, has a ton of BLP issues, and is unlikely to be acceptable. The third draft, however, is sourced and has been submitted for review. In this case I'd just leave #1 be with an {{AFC comment}} that #3 exists. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That bunch of drafts. Sometimes authors complicate things by good-faith mistakes so that they create multiple drafts. If it is multiple drafts with multiple authors, and none of them are ready for acceptance, I sometimes request that either author fold the two together, but usually it is one author who is simply overly enthusiastic, a good-faith error. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Drafts?

Hi again, I came across a draft for: Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Jeff Bezos, which is a WikiProject regarding Amazon and Washington Post. Whether this should be a thing or not is debatable, or if it should be a subsection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Media I'm not sure. My question is that are these things that should be accepted/declined, if it is a WikiProject nomination, as there is no information on the reviewers instructions. I'm also not sure regarding WikiProjects being created by IPs, but I couldn't find anything against that either. What is our procedure? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue is outside the scope of AFC, which deals only with draft articles and templates. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I've declined as "ask around" just to get it out of the queue. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I would direct them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(whoops, deleted Joe Roe's comment. I've re-added, and I agree that it's a good idea. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC))
Thanks for your help. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Demola Adetona

I would be grateful if someone could have a look at the above. I declined it on 2 January as an advertisement for a non-notable person which only had a single source, and that to the article subject's own site and which gave you an unsafe site warning when you went to it. The article now appears to have been Accepted, although I can't find the details. I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Improper copy/paste pagemove. It has been deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated and thanks for the prompt response. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Question: Corporate Name Salted

I have a question that I think I know the answer to. I encountered a situation where a sandbox was submitted to AFC containing a draft on a company. I tried to move it to draft space, and the move was refused because the name is salted in both draft space and article space, in both cases as G11. I would have declined the draft anyway, on notability grounds and tone grounds, but it seems that that has already been decided. I declined the sandbox again, explaining that it was create-protected in both draft space and article space, and that the author should discuss with the salting administrator or with the admin community at WP:AN, because there really isn't anything that a reviewer can do. The author then resubmitted the sandbox yet again. I know that some editors at MFD don't like to have sandboxes tagged for MFD because they are sandboxes, but submitting a sandbox that can't be accepted due to halite in the Earth is tendentious, and I have tagged the sandbox for deletion, as the only way I knew to deal with the annoyance. What would other reviewers do? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it is Draft:Knovos and Knovos that are salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Do other reviewers have other advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Once there is a reviewer's note that the target name is salted, the draft can simply remain in the submission queue. Other reviewers can decline it again, perhaps giving guidance on how the article may be improved to the point where it could be accepted. Only reviewers who are also admins (I think we have a few) will be able to accept the article, once it's in an a state where it should be accepted, or – because only they can see whether it is sufficiently similar to a previously deleted version – delete it for G4. If a non-admin reviewer thinks the article should be accepted, they can leave a comment to that effect, which may speed up the decision-making process.
We don't delete submissions that are repeatedly submitted after declines when the contributor appears to be trying to improve the draft. It's only treated as tendentious when the draft is repeatedly submitted with no sign of attempted improvement. The inability of non-privileged reviewers to accept the submission is not, in itself, a reason for deletion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Any reviewer who wants to accept the draft is welcome to request unsalting of course. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ditto the above. I don't know when (or why) the belief that only admins can accept a salted draft came about; all that's needed is to ping one. We trust you guys ;) Primefac (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the idea comes from the fact that – technically – a non-admin reviewer can't accept a salted draft without admin intervention. But I see your point, we're not completely helpless and there are plenty of admins who would unsalt the name at the request of a reviewer, so we're not limited to just those admins who are active at AfC.
But this does relate to my earlier question. Presumably the Draft: name shouldn't be unsalted just to be able to move a not-ready submission there without at least some review that it wouldn't immediately be a G4 candidate, right? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac - You wonder where the idea came from that only admins can accept a salted draft. Here is what I see as the backstory. I frequently encounter the situation that an article title has already been deleted. If it has been deleted based on a deletion discussion, that has a certain precedential value, because G4 applies to re-creation. Only an administrator can see the deleted page to know whether the new draft is better, so a reviewer should not just accept the draft without considered the deletion discussion. I have often asked the submitter to please request that the deleted article be restored to user space for comparison. What usually happens is that the author just resubmits yet again; presumably they are just hoping that the next reviewer overlooks the history. The situation where an article has been not only deleted but salted is an even stronger case that the reviewer should not accept without the ability to compare the old and the new. That is the real issue, from my standpoint, that a reviewer should not accept a draft that has been deleted after AFD, or salted, without comparing the old and the new. Does that provide perspective? Also, in my opinion, and it is only my opinion, in such situations, I very seldom see an author who is actually trying to improve the draft, only an author who is trying to get the draft through. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, fair enough. I guess I'm just used to people pinging me to unsalt a page so that it can be moved to the article space; I generally trust their judgement. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac - Well, first, I assume that you mean that you are willing to trust reviewers in requesting an unsalt, and not original authors in requesting an unsalt. Anyway, when I, as a reviewer, see a sandbox draft that I can't move to draft space because the draft title has been salted, I wonder what the history is. Maybe you have more reason to be trusting of the judgment of reviewers, who are experienced editors, than I do to be trusting of the judgment of authors, some of whom are good-faith editors, some of whom are good-faith clueless newbies, and some of whom have conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I don't really care what the creator wants :p Primefac (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac - By the way, could you please take a look at User:Teshil patel/sandbox and comment on what you would do? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I would have also declined as |adv| and I probably would have MFD'd to put the matter to rest, but I don't know if I would have speedied it (but I don't do G11 speedies). Primefac (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Automatic Negative Thoughts

Could I get a second opinion on this one? From Googling it looks obviously notable (though debatable whether it should be ANTs or NATs), and the article has sources. My only question is whether it actually says enough that it would survive AfD. It seems to be summarisable as: "if you're depressed or anxious you'll tend to think badly of yourself without trying. There's a 30-item questionnaire to see if you do that. Mindfulness might help."

Should it be a) published as brief but accurate for others to extend; b) closed as merge (mention ANTs on Social anxiety disorder, either Depression (mood) or Major depressive disorder, and Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy); c) something else? Mortee (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not my area of competence at all, but to me it looks thin, both in content and sourcing, compared with, say, Social anxiety disorder. To my mind, this suggests a merge. But into what, I couldn't say. Sorry, not very helpful. KJP1 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mortee: Based upon a quick Google search, I'd lean towards acceptance. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
And I've just accepted it myself. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Venetian helmet-crown & Draft:Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet-Crown

We currently have the above two drafts on a single topic, probably created as part of a college project. Colleagues more knowledgeable than I tell me that the topic is notable and worth keeping, and have provided some additional sources. I've contacted the editors of both drafts suggesting they collaborate, but have received no responses, as they've probably moved on. The simplest thing would be for me to just create a new article incorporating the existing material, supplemented by the new sources. I could then Decline both drafts, with the rationale of there being an existing article. But I'm not sure that would be the most appropriate course of action. Would it, in fact, be better and fairer to the original editors, to work up one of the two existing drafts? If so, which one? I'd be grateful for advice. KJP1 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If they're gone, then I would merge the best content from the "not as good" version into the "better" version (if there is one), accept the merged version, and make sure there's a {{copied}} template at both talk pages. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Got it - except perhaps the copied template. I may need assistance but will have a go! KJP1 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just redirect the one you merge from to the one you merge into. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That works, but if it's a true merger then content is copied, which means attribution must be given. A simple redirect-it-and-forget-it won't do. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I've ducked out of the complexity by just developing the better of the two, and moving it, into this, Draft:Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet. Which User:Johnbod has kindly added to. I think it's good enough now, for another editor to Accept. I'm afraid I shall have to leave the attribution of one to the other to editors more competent than myself. KJP1 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion - Josef Schmalz

Would someone else take a look at Draft:Josef Schmalz? Based on the content and the references provided I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. A WP:BEFORE check is hampered both by language and by there being multiple people of that name. An article about him in the German Wikipedia, was nominated for deletion. I copied the discussion into Google translate and didn't spot that the dates were from last year and didn't see an outcome so thought it was a current discussion. However LAE means speedy keep. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure it does meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, which realistically is all that matters. Regardless of what happened on the German Wiki. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate Drafts by Seemingly Different Authors

A situation that I encounter commonly is a draft in a sandbox when there is already a draft in draftspace with the appropriate name on the subject. By the way, I think that finding this is a side benefit of moving sandbox drafts into draft space; it finds duplicates, because the move is blocked. Usually the duplicate drafts are by the same author, and the duplication is a good-faith error, good-faith enthusiasm, or even an edit conflict (one reviewer moves the sandbox while another comments on it, creating two copies). If the two drafts are by the same person, then that is all right. Either they are the same, or one of them is a better draft (has had more work), and the earlier or less complete draft can be deleted.

However, sometimes I see two drafts that are the same or almost the same, down to the wording and the references, by different accounts. There are at least two possible accounts. First, they are one human, in which case it is sockpuppetry. Second, they are two different humans, in which case the second one is ripping off the first person's work, which is copyleft violation (and since a copyleft is a subspecies of copyright, any violation of the restrictions on the copyleft have the same full legal significance as a violation of a traditional copyright). Is there a third explanation?

My question, and I think I know the answer but am not sure, is which explanation should be preferred. I think that a version of Assume Good Faith would be Assume Less Bad Faith, and sockpuppetry is only a violation of the WMF's terms of use, while copyleft violation is also a violation of the laws of the United States. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect all content forks to the best copy. Wait for them to speak to you before starting with assumptions. Isn’t it the case that so often none of the accounts edit again? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with the redirect - if the newer version is a direct copy, it's possible that the new user didn't realize that they could edit someone else's work (I've had a few conversations on IRC where new users thought that people "owned" articles). If the newer version is a direct copy and it's been improved, then file for a histmerge. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed

In the course of reviewing this draft, Draft:PetShop uk, it has become apparent that the author, User talk:Ebrown58, is the owner of the business. I've advised him of the need to declare a conflict. It's also become apparent that he controls two further accounts, User talk:Lil-lambson, which has authored this draft about his wife, Draft:Alexandra Taylor, and this account, User talk:Giraffe601, which has authored this draft about himself, Draft:Adam Taylor. I've no idea as to the protocols around running multiple accounts with undeclared conflicts and would appreciate advice. It may be best if the advice is given directly to User talk:Ebrown58 and I'll let him know I've raised the query. Fuller details on my Talkpage if required. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The COI itself isn't a big issue (in the sense that it could be a good faith misunderstanding) but the multiple accounts fall under WP:SPI. You should report them there immediately. ProgrammingGeek talktome 05:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Template needs amending

On article acceptance the note posted to the user's talk page says: "note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request". With WP:ACTRIAL I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If they've managed to get a draft accepted through AFC, then chances are they're autoconfirmed by that point and should be able to create pages directly in the mainspace. (also, for reference, the template is Template:AfC talk. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the template. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems a little wordy, but if no one complains... Primefac (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jarion Henry

Can someone please look at Draft:Jarion Henry? It has no references, and the dates cannot possibly be correct. Is it just completely wrong, or is wrong in the sense of being a hoax? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jarion Henry exists, but the only coverage I can find is routine match coverage giving "Henry scored 15" etc, and a small amount when he was traded to the Storm. Definitely doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS, and I've trimmed out everything I can't find. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac - In that case, either the dates or the timeline is wrong. It says he was born in 2002 and was in high school later in the same decade. If it isn't a hoax, then it has errors (as well as a notability issue). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It said 1992 when I first saw it, so clearly it was changed. Can't source it anyway so I've removed it. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer Question - Previously Deleted Articles

This issue arises often enough that I think it is worth raising here for the comments of other reviewers. Sometimes when a draft is submitted, the AFC script shows that the title has been deleted one or more times in the past. Often the deletion was A7 or G11, and in those cases the fact of a previous deletion doesn't matter, because the relevant issue is the content of the current draft, and besides A7 doesn't apply to drafts. If the draft doesn't establish notability, and it usually doesn't, the proper action is simply to decline the draft based on a notability criterion and provide a brief comment. However, my question has to do with the situation where the draft was deleted following a deletion discussion. Articles for Creation is a mechanism for the review of drafts, not a mechanism to bypass the judgment of the community or to game the system. I will provide my own thinking and welcome any comments that agree, partly agree, or disagree. Since I normally haven't seen the deleted article, and cannot view it because I am not an administrator, I don't know whether the new draft is substantially the same as the deleted article. So I not only don't know whether the new draft will pass another AFD with the same participants, but I don't know whether the new draft is eligible for G4 speedy deletion. I generally don't think that I should simply accept the draft. My usual approach has been to ask the submitter to have the deleted article restored to user space or draft space via a Request for Undeletion so that I can compare. I know that some submitters resent this approach and say that the community was wrong in deleting the previous article, and that their draft should just be accepted. (First, if the closer was wrong, take it to Deletion Review. Second, if the community was wrong, maybe they will do another wrong deletion.) So what do other reviewers think should be done in this special situation where an article has previously been deleted via Articles for Deletion? Should I ask to have the deleted article restored in draft space? Should I simply tag the new draft as G4 and say that it is their problem? Should I simply use whatever judgment I would use in an AFD, or in an AFC with no history? Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Before I had the bit (and even now, most of the time) I evaluate the draft based on what the AFD made their argument against. Examples:
If they said "clearly not notable, only two crappy sources" and there are 4-5 RS in the draft, then I consider the issue addressed.
If it was "this is entirely promotional, and nothing worth saving" and the draft isn't overly promotional, then I consider the issue addressed.
If it's a borderline case, I suppose you could ask to see the original (as we did with that one taking up my talk page), but I think if it's managed to get through AFC without any major issues, it should be acceptable. If it gets re-AFD'd, it gets re-AFD'd. It's not the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No. Ragnarok really is TEOTW. Armageddon really is TEOTW. Global thermonuclear war isn't TEOTW, but it is TEOTWAWKI. An AFD isn't the end of the world. 2038 doomsday isn't the end of the world, only the end of some Unix, and there is plenty of time to expand that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tagging Drafts for Speedy Deletion

I would like to ask a somewhat general question, about when a reviewer should tag a draft for speedy deletion. Two obvious cases are G5 and A7. G5 is obvious, to me, because AFC has never been a mechanism for end-runs by sockpuppets. G5 applies to the (blocked or banned) author, not the topic as such. Anything that would be G5 in article space is G5 in draft space. A7 is obvious because it is obviously inapplicable to draft space, just as the other A criteria are inapplicable to draft space.

Also, I would say that G1 and G2 do not apply in draft space because tests are valid uses of sandboxes (although tests should not be submitted to AFC). G10 should be used for attack pages (some of which are just really bad stupid juvenile humor), because attack pages have no place anywhere in Wikipedia.

My main question has to do with when G11 should be used to tag really spammy drafts. A lot of marginal drafts that would get G11 in article space can just be declined as reading like an advertisement. My own thinking is that I will tag a draft as G11 if it is written in the first person plural ("we"), but that is just my thinking (and drafts that I have tagged this way normally do get deleted as G11). Comments on G11 in draft space? Comments on other G taggings in draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer not to tag G11 in the draft space, but from conversations with others, it seems to be a "letter of the law" as far as the actual G11 text goes, i.e. exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten (emphasis in original). From the G11's I've deleted, these include (as you say) things like "buy from us" or "we're the company that the industry trusts". Also, pages that are obviously copied from a sales catalogue or review. Indeed, if when removing the promotional text you remove everything except "Acme is a company" or "Joe Bloggs is a singer" then it would fall under G11 (similar to how a copyvio draft should really only be G12'd if there's nothing substantial remaining after the cv is dealt with).
As for the other "G" parameters, there's a rather large discussion happening at WT:CSD regarding that stuff; might be worth a read. Personally, I agree with your above thoughts, that G5, G10, G11, and G12 are really the only ones that should be used on Drafts. Occasionally G4 as well, if something was previously deleted at MFD. Primefac (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
[[W:G1] Patent Nonsense absolutely applies to Drafts submitted to AfC. Nonsense is nonsense and should be speedy deleted. I occasionally patrol the "Blank" declines and WP:G2 them. After a few days of no effort and no content any blank submission should be removed. No need to let them sit until G13, and when I find them at G13 I still G2 them so no REFUND. YMMV on G11 but Admin tolerance for promotion continues to drop. I G11 not just companies but musical acts, youtubers and other pages where there is obviously no notability and the page is just an effort to promote. I'd prefer to remove the hopeless sooner than later. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
G11 is by far the most common speedy I do, because spam is what it is, kill on sight is the way to deal with it. None of the A# can ever be used on drafts, because such flaws can (at least in theory) be fixed in draft before reaching mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Kookies N Kream Dance Crew

I'd appreciate it if another reviewer could have a look at this. It appears very dubious. I've detailed my concerns on the article's Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Australia's Got Talent (season 6) as an appropriate place to cover that topic. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. If it belongs anywhere, that's a much more suitable place. KJP1 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

School security

Moved to WT:AFC#School security. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)