Question for AFC Reviewers
AFC Reviewers Giving Vague or Illogical Rejection Reasons
1. Is the article not neutral? If so, what exactly in the text makes it non-neutral? It’s purely informational, so where is the bias?
2. Is the article unsourced? If it has sources, why is it being treated like it doesn’t? Be specific about what’s missing.
3. Are the sources being dismissed without explanation? If they’re not acceptable, explain why. Saying "not enough sources" without pointing to gaps isn’t helpful.
4. What counts as “enough” sources? Is there a minimum threshold? Or is it being rejected based on a vague standard that isn’t clearly defined?
5. Is cultural significance being undervalued because the festival is regional or non-Western? If similar festivals from other regions are considered notable, why is this one being held to a different standard? Notability should be assessed fairly, not filtered through geographic or cultural bias.
6. Does Wikipedia have a policy against using AI tools? If not, then why is AI involvement being treated like a problem?
7. Is just feeling that something was written by AI grounds for rejection? If someone thinks it’s AI-generated, fine, but how does that affect quality or policy compliance? Saying "it feels like AI" is not an argument.
Plz answer this. I've been on here for a while and i've seen articles with zero sources..if you can't justify why my article is rejected yet it meets all Wikipedia standards you need to quit your responsibilities and focus on getting a life !! and yes this is not an attack on anyone and it falls well within Wikipedia’s code of conduct ...do something about it. Phxlm (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)