Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions

"Wikipedia:AFCR" redirects here; not to be confused with Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Feed, Category, SortingShowcaseApply
Participants, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help desk
FAQBacklog
drives

This page covers the review of draft articles. For other Articles for creation processes, see the Redirect reviewing instructions, Category reviewing instructions, and Files for upload reviewer instructions.

What is Articles for Creation?

Articles for creation (AfC) is Wikipedia's process for reviewing new draft articles before they are published to mainspace. It must be used by new and unregistered editors who cannot create articles directly in mainspace, and should be used by editors with a conflict of interest in the subject. More experienced editors can also choose to use AfC when they would benefit from another editor reviewing the draft before publication. Editors usually submit new drafts for review via the Article wizard.

Many draft authors are brand new to Wikipedia, and creating and submitting an article may be their first contribution to the project. They are likely to be unfamiliar with our policies, guidelines, and terminology. AfC reviewers therefore have two jobs:

1. to decide if a submission is ready to become an article;
2. where substantive problems prevent it from being published, to give the author clear and useful guidance about what needs to change.

AfC is not a general quality review. Draft authors are not expected to write good articles - it is enough that their drafts are suitable for mainspace and do not have serious policy problems. If the remaining problems can reasonably be dealt with through ordinary editing or maintenance templates, the draft should usually be accepted.

Before you begin

Become an AfC reviewer

To review AfC submissions you need to meet the reviewer criteria and apply by visiting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.

Administrators and New Page Reviewers can review AfC submissions automatically.

The AfC Helper Script (AFCH) is used to accept, decline, reject, and comment on submissions. It also notifies the draft author and performs necessary cleanup when a draft is accepted.

Enable AFCH in your Gadget preferences by selecting AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions (drafts).

We recommend enabling AFCH's logging feature. This records your accepts, declines, rejects, and comments on your user subpage, making it much easier to look back at your previous reviews. To enable, open AFCH on any draft, select preferences, and tick Log acceptance, declines, and rejects. If your log subpage gets too large it can lag the script so we recommend periodically archiving to reduce its size.

We also recommend enabling Twinkle from your Gadget preferences. AfC reviewers regularly encounter drafts which need actions outside AFCH, particularly speedy deletion, copyright cleanup, user warnings, and other maintenance tasks. Twinkle makes many of these actions much easier.

Finding drafts

All drafts are displayed in a dynamic list at the Articles for Creation tab of Special:NewPagesFeed. You can filter drafts by clicking Set filters and choose from the available filters what kinds of drafts you would like to review.

You can also find a list at Category:Pending AfC submissions. Submissions sorted by their predicted category can be found at Wikipedia:AfC sorting.

Or you can click the Random draft button, which will take you to a random draft waiting for review.

You do not need to know every Wikipedia policy before beginning AfC reviewing. Start with straightforward drafts, use these instructions while reviewing, and ask another reviewer for help when you are unsure.

What is an AfC reviewer deciding?

Your job as a reviewer is not to decide whether the draft is complete, perfectly written, or well formatted. Instead, it is to decide whether there is a substantive reason the draft should not yet be published as an article. Articles that will probably survive a discussion at Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined.

If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?

Yes, it will probably be kept.	Then Accept it. We encourage you to fix formatting problems and tag with maintenance templates as appropriate.
No, it will probably be deleted.	Then Decline or Reject it where appropriate. Explain the problem that prevents the draft from being accepted.
Maybe, but I'm not sure.	Then ask for help on the project talk page.

Accept, decline, reject, or ask for help

AfC reviews result in a draft being accepted, declined, or rejected. The basic distinction is whether the draft is ready for mainspace, fixable, or fundamentally unsuitable. If you are genuinely unsure, leave it for another reviewer or ask for help rather than guessing.

No substantive reason to keep it out of mainspace?	Not ready yet, but the problem could reasonably be fixed?	Fundamentally unsuitable with no reasonable prospect of fixing?
↓	↓	↓
ACCEPT Publish the draft	DECLINE Explain what needs fixing	REJECT Further work is unlikely to make the draft acceptable

Accept

Accept a draft when there is no substantive reason it should remain outside mainspace. An accepted draft does not need to be complete, perfectly written, or fully formatted. Minor problems such as poor formatting, missing wikilinks, missing categories, no infobox, no images, a non-standard citation style can usually be fixed yourself or tagged with an appropriate maintenance template after acceptance.

Decline

Decline a draft when there is a substantive problem which prevents it from being accepted in its current form, but which could reasonably be fixed. When declining, try to identify all the substantive problems which currently prevent acceptance rather than making the author repeatedly resubmit to discover them one at a time, which can be confusing and frustrating for new editors.

Reject

Reject a draft only when the subject or content is fundamentally unsuitable for Wikipedia and there is no reasonable prospect that further work would make it acceptable. This normally means that an article on the subject would be overwhelmingly deleted at Articles for deletion or falls within an applicable What Wikipedia is not or speedy deletion criterion. Rejection does not prevent an article being created in the future if new sources later appear.

Ask for help

You are not expected to be an expert on every subject or every Wikipedia policy! If you are unsure, leave the draft for another reviewer or ask for a second opinion at the project talk page.

Decline and rejection reasons

The AfC submission comments provide standardised decline reasons for common problems. You can choose up to two reasons to decline a draft in the AfC Helper Script.

The template is a starting point and you can add a short comment explaining what specifically the author needs to address. Explain the issue clearly and link to the relevant policy or guideline where possible. The existence of a standard decline reason does not mean that every instance of that problem requires a decline. Use a decline reason only where the problem is substantial enough to prevent acceptance; minor problems should normally be fixed or tagged instead.

Learn about the standard decline and rejection reasons

Code	Use when
Notability
nn	General notability: the subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline.
bio	People: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for people.
corp	Companies and organisations: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for companies and organisations.
prof	Academics: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for academics.
creative	Creative professionals: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for creative professionals.
athlete	Sport and athletes: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for sports and athletes.
music	Music: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for music.
film	Films: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for films.
book	Books: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for books.
event	Events: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for events.
web	Web content: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for web content.
geo	Geographical features: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for geographical features.
species	Species: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for species.
astro	Astronomical objects: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for astronomical objects.
number	Numbers: the subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline for numbers.
neo	Neologisms: the subject is a newly coined term or expression which does not appear to have received sufficient independent coverage.
Invalid or misplaced submissions
blank	Blank submission: the submission contains no content to review.
lang	Not in English: the draft itself is not written in English.
test	Test edit: the draft is an editing experiment rather than an attempted encyclopaedia article.
cat	Category request: the author has submitted a proposed category instead of using the category creation process.
redirect	Redirect request: the author has submitted a proposed redirect instead of using the redirect creation process.
ecr	Extended-confirmed restriction: the draft concerns a topic subject to an extended-confirmed restriction which prevents the author from contributing to the topic.
BLP, vandalism, and copyright
ilc	Insufficient in-line citations: material which must have in-line citations, particularly material about living people, is not adequately cited.
blp	Serious BLP problem: the draft contains unsourced or unverifiable material about a living person which cannot remain visible. Remove the problematic material as well as declining the draft.
van	Attack, vandalism, or entirely negative unsourced BLP: the submission is vandalism, an attack page, or another page likely to qualify for speedy deletion.
cv	Copyright violation: substantial text has been copied or closely paraphrased from another source without a compatible licence. Do not simply decline it and leave the infringement in the history; follow the copyright cleanup procedure.
Sourcing and article content
nosource	No sources: the draft contains no sources at all, whether as in-line citations, general references, external links, or offline sources.
v	Inadequate reliable sourcing: the problem is verification of the draft's content rather than whether the subject itself is notable.
med	Medical sourcing: biomedical information in the draft is not adequately supported by sources which meet the requirements of reliable sources for biomedical information.
not	Not suitable for Wikipedia: the draft fundamentally falls within What Wikipedia is not.
news	News report or one event: the draft concerns a recent or isolated event without demonstrating lasting notability.
dict	Dictionary definition: the submission is a definition of a word, phrase, or abbreviation rather than an encyclopaedia article.
plot	Plot summary: the draft is mostly a plot description without sufficient sourced real-world context, analysis, development, reception, or significance.
joke	Joke or hoax: the submission appears intended as humour or contains an obvious fabrication.
ai	AI-generated content: the draft shows evidence of prohibited or problematic large-language-model generation, such as fabricated sourcing, hallucinations, generic prose, close paraphrasing, or unsupported claims.
resume	Résumé or CV: a biography primarily lists positions, awards, publications, memberships, clients, or accomplishments instead of summarising what independent secondary sources consider significant.
Prose and neutrality
essay	Essay: the draft presents the author's argument, analysis, opinion, original research, or synthesis rather than summarising published sources.
npov	Non-neutral prose: the draft is written from a particular point of view or in a tone unsuitable for an encyclopaedia.
adv	Promotional writing: the draft reads substantially like advertising, publicity, or marketing copy. If it consists exclusively of unambiguous promotion, you may apply the appropriate speedy deletion criterion as well.
Duplicates and existing coverage
exists	Article already exists: Wikipedia already has an article about the same subject.
dup	Duplicate draft: another submission about the same subject is already awaiting review.
Other
context	Insufficient context: the draft does not explain its subject sufficiently for a reader unfamiliar with it to understand what the article is about.
mergeto	Better covered elsewhere: the material may be useful, but does not warrant a standalone article and would be better incorporated into an existing article.
Rejection reasons
n	Not notable: the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and there is no reasonable prospect that further work on the draft will establish notability.
e	Contrary to Wikipedia's purpose: the subject or content is fundamentally contrary to What Wikipedia is not.
j	Joke or hoax: the submission is a hoax or consists of humour rather than encyclopaedic content.
blp	Attack page: the submission is an attack page created primarily to disparage, threaten, or harass a subject. Tag the page for speedy deletion or email Oversight as appropriate.

Do not decline for these reasons

If a problem would ordinarily be dealt with in mainspace through normal editing or a maintenance template, it usually does not justify an AfC decline. Do not decline an otherwise acceptable draft because:

• Citation formatting: the references are formatted inconsistently, use bare URLs, or use a style you would not personally use.
• General references: the draft uses general references rather than in-line citations where in-line citations are not required.
• Source accessibility: sources are offline, paywalled, or not in English.
• Optional formatting: the draft lacks headings, infobox, image, categories, or wikilinks.
• Ordinary cleanup: the draft is short, incomplete, or needs ordinary copy-editing.

If the problem can be quickly fixed yourself, fix it! Otherwise, accept the draft and use an appropriate maintenance template where necessary.

Reviewing a draft

When you begin reviewing a draft, you may use Mark as reviewing in the AfC Helper Script. This lets other reviewers know that somebody is already reviewing the submission and helps avoid edit conflicts and duplicate reviews.

Before reviewing the draft itself, briefly check its page history, page log, and any previous reviews. This can tell you what problems have already been identified, what the author has changed since the last review, and if there are any issues which need particular attention.

If the draft has previously been declined, do not assume that the previous review was correct or that the same decline reason still applies. Review the current version yourself. If the author has made substantial changes, take those changes into account rather than simply repeating the previous decline.

Step 1: Check for immediate problems

Some drafts can be quickly declined, rejected, or marked for speedy deletion without a full review because they have an obvious issue contrary to our policies and guidelines. These can include:

Immediate action

• Copyright infringement: Follow the copyright violation procedure.
• Serious BLP violations: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people, and consider speedy deletion under criterion G10
• Speedy deletion: Nominate drafts that meet an applicable speedy deletion criterion, such as pure vandalism or unambiguous promotion.

Quick declines

• No sources: Decline a completely unsourced draft.
• Uncited BLP: Decline a biography of a living person with no in-line citations.
• Not in English: Decline a draft that is not written in English.
• Article already exists: Decline a draft that unnecessarily duplicates an existing article.

Rejection

• Fundamentally unsuitable: Consider rejecting a draft that is wholly contrary to Wikipedia's purpose and has no reasonable prospect of becoming an acceptable article.

Step 2: Identify the applicable notability guideline

• Notability is about whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for a standalone article.
• Verifiability is about whether the content of the draft is supported by reliable sources.

Review notability early. This avoids authors spending time fixing formatting, prose, or citation issues only to be told later that the subject does not qualify for an article at all. Many problems in a draft can be fixed through editing, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability!

When assessing notability under the general notability guideline, we generally look for multiple sources that meet the three criteria below. Multiple is not defined, but in practice finding three strong and distinct sources will usually make notability easier to establish. The quality and depth of the coverage matters more than the number of references in the draft, and sources derived from the same original material should not be counted separately.

Assess the coverage itself, not merely the publication in which it appears. A reputable newspaper can publish an interview which contributes little or nothing towards notability. Likewise, a source may be useful for verifying a fact without helping to establish notability; for example, a company's own website may verify its address but cannot provide the independent coverage needed to establish notability.

General notability guideline

For subjects assessed under the general notability guideline, look for multiple sources that provide:

significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.

Significant coverage

We need significant coverage. We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, government records, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it.

Reliable sources

We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, and accuracy. For example: books from reputable publishing houses, mainstream newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and other established publications. Not: tabloids, discussion boards, fansites, social media, and most self-published blogs.

Independent

We need sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Not: books or articles written by the subject, material paid for or commissioned by the subject, press releases, or interviews where virtually all of the information comes from the subject or their spokesperson.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Before applying the general notability guideline, check whether a subject-specific notability guideline applies. Some SNGs provide an alternative route to notability.

Learn about the subject-specific notability guidelines

Subject	Applies to
People generally	Biographies which are not more appropriately assessed under another subject-specific guideline
Organisations and companies	Companies, corporations, organisations, products, and services
Academics	Academics, professors, scientists, researchers, and scholars
Creative professionals	Authors, artists, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, and other creative professionals
Music	Musicians, bands, albums, songs, and other musical subjects
Sports and athletes	Sportspeople, teams, leagues, competitions, and other sporting subjects
Politicians and judges	Politicians, elected officials, judges, and candidates for political office
Web content	Websites, web content, internet personalities, and other web-specific subjects
Books	Books and other published literary works
Films	Films and other motion pictures
Events	Events, newsworthy incidents, disasters, protests, competitions, and similar occurrences
Schools	Schools and educational institutions
Geographical features	Places, settlements, geographical features, and certain other geographic subjects
Species	Species and other taxonomic subjects
Astronomical objects	Astronomical objects
Lists	Standalone lists
Numbers	Individual numbers

Step 3: Check the draft's sourcing and verifiability

Once you are satisfied that the subject is notable, check that the draft's important claims are supported in reliable sources, in particular the claims which are being relied upon to establish notability.

Be particularly careful for biographies of living people: contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately rather than left in the draft for the author to fix later.

You usually do not need to analyse every reference with equal intensity.

Keep the following in mind:

• Primary sources: primary or subject-affiliated sources can sometimes be used for straightforward, uncontroversial facts, but should be used carefully and do not normally establish notability.
• Offline, paywalled, and non-English sources: these are fine to use and you should not decline a draft simply because you cannot access a source online or because it is written in another language.
• Promotional coverage: it's easy for a subject, publicist, or paid editor to generate apparently impressive online coverage. Press releases, sponsored articles, paid profiles, contributor pieces, and churnalism may look independent while simply repeating material supplied by the subject.
• Original research and synthesis: check that the draft reflects what the sources actually say and that sources haven't been combined to reach a conclusion that none of them makes. New editors sometimes write the prose first and try to fit in sources afterwards.
• Broken or misleading citations: if a source does not exist, does not support the claim it is cited for, or has otherwise been cited inaccurately, this is a verification problem rather than a formatting problem.

Step 4: Check neutrality and encyclopaedic suitability

Once you are satisfied that the subject is notable and the draft is adequately sourced, check whether it is written from a neutral point of view and is suitable for Wikipedia. Do not decline simply because the prose is imperfect. Avoid putting a draft through another review cycle for problems which can reasonably be fixed yourself or dealt with using a maintenance template.

Keep the following in mind:

• Conflict of interest: a conflict of interest is not itself a reason to decline. Check that any required disclosure has been made; paid editors must comply with the paid-contribution disclosure requirements.
• Promotional writing: watch for advertising language, unsupported praise, corporate jargon, mission statements, calls to action, excessive lists of products or services, and claims such as "solutions", "leading", "renowned", or "innovative". If these problems are limited, edit them out. If the whole draft is promotional, decline it. If it consists exclusively of unambiguous promotion and would need to be fundamentally rewritten, consider speedy deletion under criterion G11.
• CVs: a biographical article should summarise what reliable independent sources state about a person, not just reproduce their CV. Long lists of jobs, awards, memberships, publications, appearances, clients, or achievements may need substantial trimming.
• Balance and undue weight: the draft should broadly reflect how reliable sources cover the subject. It should not selectively include only praise, criticism, achievements, controversies, or the viewpoint preferred by the author.
• Merge to existing article: check whether the topic really needs a standalone article. If not, decline the draft and suggest an appropriate merge target.

Step 5: Accepting a draft

If you have not found a substantive reason to keep the draft out of mainspace you should accept it. The AfC Helper Script will move the draft to mainspace, notify the author, and create the article talk page.

1. Click the Accept button
   • Choose an appropriate article title and check if it might need adding to any disambiguation pages;
   • Give the article an assessment on the quality scale;
   • Consider adding appropriate categories or stub-tags;
   • If accepting an article about a person, tick the biography checkbox, and select the relevant option from the living person drop-down menu. This ensures such articles are placed in Category:Biography articles of living people.
   • Once published to mainspace, you can still correct any obvious formatting or add any maintenance tags.

What to do if AFCH cannot accept the draft

• The title is blacklisted: if the proposed title is blocked by the title blacklist, request assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
• The title is creation-protected: if the destination has been creation-protected, request unprotection at Requests for unprotection.
• A redirect already exists: if the target title is occupied by a redirect which prevents the script from moving the draft, you will be prompted to tag the redirect with Template:Db-afc-move. You may leave the draft marked as under review while waiting for an administrator to process the request. Check the redirect every so often to see if it has been deleted.
• The title contains a slash: slashes create subpages in draftspace. For example, Draft:AC/DC is treated as a subpage of Draft:AC. Move the draft temporarily to a title without the slash, accept it, and then move the resulting article to the correct title.

Reviewer tips

• Avoid reviewing the same draft over and over: a fresh reviewer may spot something you missed, and it avoids one reviewer effectively becoming responsible for an author's drafts.
• Allow for differences in judgement: reviews are not always clear-cut, and another reviewer might accept a draft you would have declined or vice versa. Don't criticise another reviewer just for reaching a different judgement.
• Avoid reviewing on demand: authors may ask you on your talk page to review their draft. You are under no obligation to do so, and routinely accepting requests for individual reviews is a good way to acquire an endless personal AfC queue. Point them towards the normal review queue instead. You do not own the draft or its outcome.
• Quality over quantity: take the time you need to check the sources and make a good decision. A smaller number of careful reviews is much more useful than a large number of rushed ones.
• Watch out for burnout: AfC reviewing can be thankless and you are at the coal face of dealing with frustrated new editors and an endless queue of drafts. Take breaks, review at your own pace, and remember that you're a volunteer. The queue does not need to be cleared!
• Use AFCH's cleanup tools: if a draft contains unnecessary sandbox or draft templates, click Clean submission in AFCH rather than cleaning everything manually.
• Ask for help when something looks wrong: if you suspect undisclosed paid editing, sockpuppetry, or other organised editing but are unsure what to do next, ask for advice at the project talk page. You do not need to investigate everything yourself.

Common situations

Learn about common situations you might find yourself in

Reviewing repeated submissions

When reviewing a draft that has previously been declined, check the page history and previous reviews to see what has changed. Do not assume that an earlier review was correct or that the same decline reason still applies. If the draft still cannot be accepted, explain what remains unresolved rather than simply repeating the previous decline. Where possible, identify all the substantive problems you can see so that the author does not have to repeatedly resubmit the draft to discover them one at a time.

Previous reviews are not binding. If you believe an earlier decline was incorrect and the draft should now be accepted, accept it and leave the previous reviewer a friendly note explaining your reasoning. Do not reject a draft simply because it has been declined several times.

Another reviewer is already reviewing the draft

If a draft is marked as under review by another reviewer, leave it to them rather than carrying out a second review at the same time. If the draft has remained under review for more than 24 hours with no apparent activity, you can ask the reviewer whether they intend to finish it or return it to the queue.

There are multiple drafts about the same subject

Sometimes editors create more than one draft about the same subject, for example in their personal sandbox and through the Article Wizard. Check whether the drafts are duplicates or contain different material before taking action.

• Duplicate drafts: If one draft simply duplicates another, the redundant submission can be declined. Generally, prefer keeping the version in draftspace.
• Moving drafts: If moving a draft from userspace to draftspace, use the Move tool to preserve its editing history. Notify the author of the new location using {{uw-draftmoved}}.
• Combining drafts: If both contain useful content or substantial editing histories, consider whether they can be combined while preserving attribution, or whether a history merge is needed. Ask for help if unsure.

AI-generated or AI-assisted drafts

The use of large language models to generate or rewrite article content is generally prohibited under the LLM guideline, including in draftspace.

Be alert to possible LLM generated content, particularly hallucinated citations and other signs described at Wikiproject AI Cleanup's Signs of AI writing. However, writing style alone is not proof that a draft was generated by an LLM, so don't rely just on your own impression or on an AI-detection tool.

Some drafts might meet the speedy deletion criteria under Unambiguously LLM-generated pages, but this has specific requirements and should not be applied just because a draft appears to be AI-generated. If you are unsure, ask for help rather than guessing.

Undisclosed paid editing and suspicious editing

AfC regularly attracts undisclosed paid editing, sockpuppetry, and organised promotional editing. Warning signs can include obviously corporate usernames, several accounts working on closely related promotional drafts, unusual patterns of recreated drafts, or an author referring to the subject as their "client", "company", or "employer".

Paid editors must make a disclosure of their employer, client, and affiliation. If there is a reasonable basis to suspect undisclosed paid editing, ask the author if they are being paid to edit.

If you suspect UPE, sockpuppetry, or other organised editing and are unsure what to do next, ask for help at the project talk page or the CoI noticeboard. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, make a case at Sockpuppet investigations. You do not need to investigate everything yourself.

The article was previously deleted

If an article or draft on the subject has previously been deleted, check the deletion log and, where applicable, the previous Articles for deletion discussion before reviewing it. If the draft was recently deleted via G5, has been recreated by a brand new account, and you have reasonable evidence of sockpuppetry; file at SPI or contact the blocking admin.

A previous deletion does not necessarily prevent a new article being created. Check why it was deleted and whether the current draft actually addresses that problem. A draft previously deleted as promotional, for example, may be perfectly acceptable if it has since been rewritten and otherwise meets our requirements.

Do not accept a substantially similar recreation which does not address the reasons for deletion. If circumstances have actually changed, such as substantial new sources becoming available, review the new evidence.

The submission is in userspace or another namespace

AfC submissions are normally kept in the Draft namespace. If you encounter a pending submission in a user's sandbox or elsewhere in userspace, move it to an appropriate draft title before reviewing it. Consider notifying the author of the draft you are moving that their work is in a new location. The {{uw-draftmoved}} template may be used.

School and university assignments

Some drafts are created as part of a school or university assignment, either via Wiki Education or not. Review these in exactly the same way as any other draft: course requirements, grades, or deadlines do not change Wikipedia's policies or guarantee that a draft will be accepted.

Other types of AfC submissions

Not every AfC submission is an article. Templates and disambiguation pages may also appear in the queue; ordinary article notability requirements do not necessarily apply to these, so consider whether the proposed page is useful and appropriate instead.

Redirects and categories have their own submission and review processes. See Articles for creation/Redirects and Articles for creation/Categories.

Marking your own AfC accepts as NPP 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.

Frequently asked questions from draft authors

Choose a topic below to find answers to common questions about creating, submitting and reviewing Wikipedia drafts.

Creating and submitting a draft

Questions about creating and submitting drafts

How do I create a new draft?

The easiest place to start is the Article Wizard. It will guide you through creating a draft and explain what Wikipedia expects from a new article.

Before you begin, search Wikipedia to check whether an article or draft about the same subject already exists. It is also worth finding suitable reliable sources before you start writing. You can save your draft and come back to it later; it does not need to be finished in one sitting.

I wrote my draft in my sandbox. How do I submit it for review?

You can submit a draft from your own sandbox. You do not have to move it to a page beginning with Draft: first.

If you see the Submit the draft for review! button, click it. If the button is missing, open your draft in the source editor, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, and publish your changes.

Your sandbox title is not necessarily the title your finished article will have. If your submission is accepted, the reviewer can move it to a suitable article title.

I clicked "Publish changes". Is my draft now an article?

No. On Wikipedia, the Publish page… and Publish changes… buttons save your edits. They do not submit your draft for review or turn it into a Wikipedia article. Your draft remains a draft until it is accepted through AfC or otherwise moved into mainspace.

To submit the draft for review, click the Submit the draft for review! button.

I can't find the submit for review button. What should I do?

Open your draft in the source editor, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, and publish your changes. If the Articles for creation submission box does not appear at the top of your draft, you can ask for help at the AfC Help desk.

How do I know if my draft has been submitted for review?

A properly submitted draft will display a notice stating Review waiting, please be patient. at the top.

If the submission notice has disappeared, check the page history in case the AfC submission template was accidentally removed. You can also ask at the AfC Help desk.

Do I have to use Articles for creation?

Not always. Autoconfirmed editors can usually create new articles directly in mainspace. New or unregistered editors who cannot create articles directly can use AfC instead.

If you have a conflict of interest, including if you are being paid to edit, you should use AfC. More experienced editors may also choose to use AfC if they would like another editor to review their draft before publication.

Writing and improving a draft

Questions about writing and improving drafts

Can I use ChatGPT or another AI tool to write my draft?

Wikipedia prohibits using large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to generate or rewrite article content. Limited exceptions apply to basic corrections to your own writing and certain translations. Read the guideline at Writing articles with large language models for more information.

Can I copy text from websites or other sources?

Generally, no. You should write your draft in your own words and cite the sources you have used. Copying or closely paraphrasing copyrighted text is not permitted simply because you have provided a reference.

Limited exceptions apply to short quotations and material in the public domain or released under a compatible licence, subject to Wikipedia's attribution and copyright requirements. See Copying text from other sources.

Do I need an infobox, images, categories, or perfect formatting?

No. These are not requirements for acceptance. Your draft does not need to be complete or beautifully formatted before it becomes an article. Focus on demonstrating notability, using reliable sources and writing neutrally. Ordinary formatting problems can usually be addressed after acceptance.

How do I add an image to my draft?

You can use suitable images already available on Wikimedia Commons, or upload an image that meets Wikimedia Commons' free-licensing requirements.

An image being available on Google, social media, or another website does not mean you are allowed to upload it. Usually, the copyright holder must release it under a suitable free licence. This may be the photographer, even if the person in the photograph gave you permission to use it.

Can someone check my draft before I submit it?

The usual way to receive a full review is to submit your draft through Articles for creation. If you have a specific question about notability, sourcing, or Wikipedia's guidelines before submitting, you can ask at the Teahouse. If your draft has already been declined and you believe you have addressed the reviewer's feedback, you can resubmit it.

Sources and notability

Questions about sources and Wikipedia's inclusion requirements

What does Wikipedia mean by notability?

On Wikipedia, notability means that a subject has received enough coverage in suitable published sources to justify its own encyclopaedia article. It does not simply mean that the subject is important, successful, popular or well known.

For most subjects, reviewers look for significant discussion in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example, a detailed newspaper feature written by an independent journalist may help to establish notability; a company's own website, a press release or an award listing usually will not do so on its own.

Some subjects have additional subject-specific guidelines. See Wikipedia's notability guideline for more information.

How do I add references and inline citations to my draft?

An inline citation is a numbered reference placed beside a statement so readers can check its source.

For example, if you write that someone won an award in 2022, place a citation to a reliable source confirming the award next to that statement. Simply putting a list of websites at the bottom of the draft is often not enough.

In the visual editor, place your cursor after the relevant sentence and choose Cite from the toolbar. You can enter a website address or add details from a book, newspaper or other source. If you use the source editor, see Referencing for beginners for instructions.

Not every sentence needs a separate citation, but information that might reasonably be questioned needs suitable sourcing, especially in biographies of living people.

How many sources do I need?

There is no fixed number. For most subjects, around three strong, independent sources providing significant coverage is a useful starting point.

The quality and depth of coverage matter more than the number of references. A few sources providing substantial independent coverage are generally more useful than dozens of passing mentions, press releases, or directory entries. Some subjects may also qualify under subject-specific notability guidelines.

Why aren't my reliable sources enough?

A source can be reliable without helping to establish notability. For most subjects, sources used to establish notability must also be independent of the subject and discuss it in significant detail.

For example, an interview in a reliable newspaper may be useful for verifying what somebody said, but much of its content may come from the subject themselves. Likewise, company websites, press releases, official registers, lists of awards and routine announcements may verify individual facts without providing the independent coverage needed to establish notability.

Can I use offline, paywalled, or non-English sources?

Yes. Sources do not need to be freely available online or written in English. They must have been published and be accessible in some way so that the information can be verified. Books, academic publications and newspaper articles can all be suitable sources, including those behind paywalls.

What special rules apply to biographies of living people?

Wikipedia has particularly careful rules for articles about people who are alive. The biographies of living persons policy applies to drafts as well as published articles.

Personal details, career claims, awards and other information that could reasonably be questioned should be supported by reliable published sources. Be especially careful with private or potentially harmful information. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims about living people should be removed rather than left in place while you look for references.

If you cannot find a reliable source for a detail, it is usually better to leave that detail out. Your draft does not need to include every fact about somebody's life.

What if I can't find enough suitable sources?

Sometimes there is nothing you can do to resolve a notability problem. Not every subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

Adding large numbers of weak sources will not compensate for a lack of significant independent coverage. If suitable sources are not available, it may be better to wait until further coverage becomes available.

Why does another subject have an article when my draft was declined?

Drafts are assessed on their own merits, not by comparison with existing Wikipedia articles. The existence of an article about one subject does not mean another automatically qualifies.

Wikipedia has millions of articles, and not every existing article meets current standards. Some were created many years ago, while others were created directly in mainspace without being reviewed through AfC. An existing article that does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines does not justify accepting another.

Waiting for review

Questions about waiting for a review

How long will my draft take to be reviewed?

There is no fixed waiting time. Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers, and drafts are not necessarily reviewed in the order they were submitted.

Some reviewers work through older submissions, while others review subjects they are familiar with. Some drafts are reviewed quickly, while others take considerably longer.

Can somebody review my draft right now?

Reviewers are volunteers and are under no obligation to perform individual reviews. There are also no deadlines on Wikipedia. Normally, you should leave your draft submitted and wait for a reviewer to reach it.

You are welcome to continue improving your draft while you wait, but repeatedly submitting it or asking individual reviewers to prioritise it will not make the process faster.

Can I keep editing my draft while it is waiting for review?

Yes, you can continue improving your draft while it is waiting for review. Remember to publish your changes to save them.

Draft titles and page moves

Questions about renaming and moving drafts

How do I change the name of my draft?

You can leave a note on your draft's talk page explaining what you would like it to be called. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer can move it to a suitable title when publishing it.

If you would like the name changed sooner, you can ask for help at the AfC Help desk.

If your account is autoconfirmed, you can usually move the draft to a new title yourself.

Can I move my draft to mainspace myself?

If your account is autoconfirmed, you can usually create or move articles into mainspace yourself. However, if you are new to creating articles, it is generally better to leave your draft submitted for review by experienced editors.

An unsuitable article may be returned to draftspace or nominated for deletion.

Why was my article moved back to draftspace?

Sometimes a newly created article is moved to a page beginning with Draft: because another editor believes it needs more work before it is ready for the encyclopaedia. This is called draftification. It does not automatically mean that the subject can never have an article.

You can improve the draft and submit it through Articles for creation for an independent review.

If you believe the move was mistaken, you can discuss it with the editor who moved the page. See Moving articles to draftspace for more information.

What should I do if an article about my subject already exists?

If an article about your subject already exists, improve that article rather than creating another draft.

If you are unsure whether two pages cover the same subject, ask at the Teahouse before creating a duplicate.

Declines, rejections and appeals

Questions about reviews and appeals

What is the difference between a decline and a rejection?

A decline means that the draft is not ready to become an article, but the problems may be fixable. You can improve the draft and resubmit it for review.

A rejection means that the reviewer considers the subject or content fundamentally unsuitable for Wikipedia, with no reasonable prospect that further work on the current draft will make it acceptable. If important new evidence becomes available, ask the reviewer to reconsider.

Can I resubmit after a decline?

Yes. Before resubmitting, read the reviewer's comments and address the problems they identified. When you are ready, click the Resubmit button to resubmit a draft for review.

Repeatedly resubmitting your draft without addressing the problems is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and may become disruptive.

My draft was declined for sounding promotional. How can I fix it?

Wikipedia articles need to describe their subjects neutrally, rather than advertise or promote them. Even an accurate statement can sound promotional if it is written to impress the reader.

Remove unsupported praise, sales language, promotional language, and unnecessary claims of importance. Don't write from the company's point of view, and base your draft prose on what independent sources have actually published about the subject.

See Neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not for promotion for further advice.

My draft was declined for using AI, but I didn't use AI. What can I do?

If you wrote your draft yourself and believe the reviewer has made a mistake, politely explain how the draft was written, and whether you used any tools for spelling, grammar or editing. Some writing tools include AI features, so it is worth checking what they actually did to your text.

If the reviewer does not respond after a reasonable time, you can ask for advice at the AfC Help desk. See Wikipedia's guideline on writing articles with large language models.

Why did different reviewers give me different decline reasons?

A draft can have several problems, and different reviewers may identify different issues or reach different conclusions. Fixing one decline reason does not necessarily mean that the draft is ready for acceptance.

Can I appeal a decline or rejection?

If your draft was declined and you think the reviewer may have made a mistake, you can ask them to explain their decision. You can also improve the draft and resubmit it, or seek further advice at the AfC Help desk.

If your draft was rejected, first ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider if significant new evidence has appeared that may change its suitability. If you do not receive a reply after a reasonable time, you can ask for advice at the AfC Help desk.

Can I ask for a different reviewer?

If you improve and resubmit a declined draft, a different volunteer may review it. If you believe a previous review was mistaken, explain your concerns to the reviewer or ask for advice at the AfC Help desk.

Deleted and abandoned drafts

Questions about deleted and inactive drafts

What happens if my draft is abandoned or deleted?

You do not need to finish your draft immediately. However, drafts that have not been edited by a person for six months may be deleted under criterion G13. This is a housekeeping process, not a judgement about the subject's suitability. Drafts deleted under G13 can normally be restored on request at Requests for undeletion/G13.

Other types of deletion are handled differently. If your draft was deleted for another reason, read the deletion notice or log before asking for it to be restored.

Can I recreate a previously deleted article?

Sometimes. Whether an article can be recreated depends on why it was deleted.

For example, a draft deleted because it was promotional may be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, provided there are no other barriers to recreation.

However, if an article was deleted following an Articles for deletion discussion, the reasons for that deletion need to be addressed before it is recreated.

Conflicts of interest and other questions

Questions about conflicts of interest, scams, and search engines

Can I write an article about myself, my company, or my client?

Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about yourself or where you have a conflict of interest, but this does not automatically prevent a draft from being accepted. Your draft will be assessed against the same notability, sourcing, neutrality and other requirements as any other submission.

How do I declare a conflict of interest or paid editing?

If you are writing about yourself, your employer, a client, or another subject you are closely connected to, you should disclose that connection.

One straightforward way to do this is on your user page by briefly explaining your connection. For example: I work for Example Ltd and have contributed to Draft:Example Ltd.

If you are paid or otherwise compensated to contribute, you must disclose your employer or client as required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Read Paid-contribution disclosure for more information.

Disclosure does not guarantee that a draft will be accepted.

Someone offered to publish my article for money. Is this a scam?

Yes. Wikipedia does not charge authors to submit, review, or publish articles. Scammers may falsely promise publication, protection from deletion, or other special treatment in exchange for payment. See Wikipedia:Scam warning for more information.

I've been contacted by a reviewer off-wiki about my article. Is this a scam?

Be cautious of unsolicited messages from people claiming to be AfC reviewers or Wikipedia administrators, particularly if they request payment or offer to guarantee publication. Keep discussions about your draft on Wikipedia wherever possible. See Wikipedia:Scam warning for more information.

When will my accepted draft appear on Google?

New articles may be prevented from being indexed by search engines until they have been reviewed by New Pages Patrol or have existed for 90 days.

This only allows search engines to index the article. Wikipedia does not control search engine indexing and cannot guarantee when an article will appear in Google or other search results.

Google's Knowledge Panel or AI summary is wrong. Can Wikipedia fix it?

No. Google's Knowledge Panels and AI-generated summaries are controlled by Google, not Wikipedia. Although they may use information from Wikipedia, Wikipedia editors cannot directly change them. This also applies to any other services that scrapes Wikipedia for data.

Getting help

Help for draft authors

The AfC Help desk is the main place for draft authors to ask about declines, sourcing, notability, and what to do next. Reviewers are encouraged to help answer questions there.

Help for reviewers

Ask substantive on-wiki questions at the project talk page. There's also an active Discord server where you can chat to other reviewers: New Page Patrol Discord server.

Useful tools

These tools can make AfC reviewing quicker, but none replaces checking the draft, its sources, and the applicable policies yourself.

Learn about useful optional tools

Assessing sources

• CiteHighlighter: highlights citations according to their likely reliability.
• Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector: flags sources which may be unreliable, deprecated, blacklisted, or predatory.
• Cite Unseen: adds additional information about the type and provenance of cited sources, such as press releases, opinion pieces, sponsored content, and sources with known reliability concerns.
• Source Assessment Table Generator: generates a source assessment table which can be useful when reviewing the quality and suitability of a draft's references.

Checking links and references

• 404.js: flags references containing URLs which appear to return errors. This can help identify dead links or potentially fabricated references, but a broken URL does not by itself mean that a source does not exist.
• ReFill: adds a button which opens reFill to expand bare URLs into more complete citations.
• MergeDuplicateRefs: identifies and merges duplicate references which cite the same source multiple times.

Identifying notability guidelines

• DetectSNG: displays keywords associated with relevant subject-specific notability guidelines when they appear on a page.

Prose and cleanup

• DetectPromo: highlights words and phrases which may indicate promotional writing. Treat the results as prompts for review rather than automatic evidence that a draft is promotional.
• DraftCleaner: performs common cleanup on new pages and drafts to bring formatting, style, and citations closer to Wikipedia conventions.

Copyright

• cv-revdel: makes it easier to request revision deletion when removing copyright violations.

Page information

• talkCount: highlights if the Talk page has any discussions. Useful for checking for any context the draft author may have placed there.
• AfC History Tool: to see a reviewer's list of AfC accepts, declines, comments, and edits.
• XTools PageInfo gadget: displays useful information about a page, including its creator, creation date, and number of revisions.

Accessing paywalled sources

If you have access to the Wikipedia Library, the following bookmarklet can be added to your browser bookmarks. Clicking it while viewing a paywalled source will attempt to reopen that source through the Wikipedia Library: javascript:void(location.href="https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url="+location.href)

This is particularly useful for scholarly and academic sources.

Investigating possible AI-generated content

The following tools may assist when investigating suspected LLM-generated content. AI detectors are not reliable enough to establish AI use by themselves; use them only alongside source checking, page history, your own judgement, and the guidance at WP:AISIGNS.

• GPTZero Provenance Tool for Wikipedia: provides an automated assessment of whether text may have been generated by a large language model.
• CopyPlainText: makes it easier to copy article text as plain text for use with external analysis tools such as Pangram.