Wikipedia talk:Page Curation

NPP backlog

LDS sources and notability for an LDS temple

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

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

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

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

Requesting review of a NPP reviewers status/rights

How do I go about requesting a review of the NPP status of someone? (ANI does not seem appropriate, but maybe I am wrong.) I just reverted a draftification by SaTnamZIN of John Wood Sweet; unfortunately this is not the first inappropriate draftification of an academic by this user. The editor appears to believe that it is justified to label as COI (and in one case UPE) any case where the page creator has made few other edits. While this may be COI, an accusation such as this is not appropriate without evidence; per WP:COICOIN the editor should be politely asked. Other cases have been when a pass of WP:NPROF is self evident, and AfD nominations which do not follow policy or are not for correct reasons. It does not appear that SaTnamZIN has a good understanding of academics. You can see some discussion at User talk:SaTnamZIN; I am not the only person who has questioned some of the decisions, what I mention here is not everything.

Courtesy pings of Ekabhishek and HJ Mitchell. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Aside from this, I am concerned about their English proficiency, which should really be a no brainer for somebody reviewing pages.

I genuinely cannot decipher what "For sake of own faith, please ask yourself, how come a very new editor creates an article of an Academic, which is very high on bar?" means. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I am also concerned about their English proficiency. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the time to look into this right now, but you request it just like you've done here. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems WP:AN is the designated place. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Review_and_removal_of_permissions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker, that's not a totally unreasonable place to go, but it's really high-visibility. I think it's much kinder to escalate to WT:NPP or WT:AFC. -- In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've left a note at SaTnamZIN's talk page to ensure they are aware of this discussion. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 why you are so desperate against me? At my talk page, I have cleared all of your doubts. And now you are here. --SatnaamIN (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I know that somehow these actions falls around the realms of WP:NPPREVOKE #1, but since this is the first time an issue like this is raised, can we please let this slide and hope that SatnaamIN learns from this? FWIW mentioning, I was worst when I started NPP back then, but who am I to praise myself now? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. I had a discussion with SatnaamIN on their talk page on the 18th and 19th, pointing out 3 issues at first then another 3. Rechecking today I found the draftification today of John Wood Sweet I mentioned above. Apparently my remarks about the issues a few days ago did not have enough of an impact, which is why I felt this needs further discussion/analysis. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 your concerns were replied well at my TP. But it seems you are trying to decide yourself against me. Anything personal? SatnaamIN (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 are you happy now? You got what you wanted. SatnaamIN (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

You are continually demonstrating exactly why you should not ever have NPP rights again. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No one is perfect all the time. I might have done couple of mistakes, but those mistakes are no damage. SatnaamIN (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

...ok, sorry, I've seen enough here and am stepping in to pull permissions. I'm not impressed by the repeat deflection or implication that others should be expected to clean up after them, and the replies at their talk page don't indicate an accurate understanding of WP:NPPDRAFT, but honestly my top concern here is insufficient English proficiency. It is extremely demoralizing to receive new page review feedback from an editor who cannot consistently write comprehensible, idiomatically correct English. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

While I might now be happy with this outcome, the user in question isn’t helping matters either. Signs off… Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems the user in question has changed their username and flounced. see also this edit summary which I think is pretty telling. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: Just noting some recent background for context. About a week ago, this user was highly preoccupied with questioning why another editor's NPR permissions request had been accepted. They subsequently brought the same 'grievance' to Bonadea's candidacy. Their request for the Page Mover tool was declined due to this behaviour and also due to the broader civility concerns (see here and here). I had initial reservations that they might not be here to build an encyclopedia, but I opted to observe their editing further before commenting. However, the latest issues raised regarding their NPR reviews, combined with their combative talk page interactions and apparent forum shopping, seem to validate those early impressions. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 11:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also noting Special:Diff/1355492677 regarding this thread. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, immediately after these concerns were raised, the user opted for a rather dramatic exit by placing a retired banner on their talk page. Its funny how their concept of something being "permanent" has a fairly brief shelf life. Exactly two minutes later they pivoted to declaring the account "abandoned" instead. I wonder what kind of profound semantic distinction they were aiming for with that rapid change of heart. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 15:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, this makes the defensiveness in response to Ldm1954's inquiry look much more hypocritical. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

On a slightly tangential note, I couldn't help but observe an odd quirk about their username. Has anyone ever noticed that their username is eerily similar to Tamzin's, with the name essentially embedded directly into it (SaTnamZIN). It may very well be a pure coincidence, but given the context of this discussion, I thought it was worth pointing out for the record. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 16:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That did draw my attention the first time I saw them pop up on my watchlist (way before any of the associated drama here took hold), but I don't think there's anything else in their behavior that suggests that they were trying to mimic, harass or undermine Tamzin, and their subsequent signatures and name changes don't suggest that imitating the name Tamzin was a priority. I think a more likely explanation is that their name was intended to refer to Satnam. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It could be possible! Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 17:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

+ adding they said they were Indian, so that's likely what the IN stood for. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

COI after review?

Per WP:EDITCOI, articles created with a conflict of interest should go through AFC. In the event that someone has violated without a COI declaration and created their draft in mainspace, and it is marked as reviewed, only for the COI to be declared after the review, should it still be draftified if it is eligible for it? Assuming the subject meets notability, it seems like it would simply be accepted anyway, but the COI processes are supposed to be relatively strict.

I came across Search (college selection service) in the new pages feed and it appeared notable, so I marked as reviewed, but afterward the creator declared his conflict of interest as the founder of the service on the talk page (Special:Diff/1355601944). He had also created three other articles on his companies/projects, two of which I draftified as they had not yet been reviewed, but the last (Contact (computer dating)) had already been reviewed by @JTtheOG.

What, if any, is the proper corrective course of action here for the Search and Contact articles, which both appear notable and are still within the 90 day draftification window? Do we let them be with a warning for the future, or is it better to enforce the proper COI processes? Though it does appear to be notable, the prose and light OR on the Search article are things that may have held it up at AFC imo. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to send someone to AFC limbo just for the bureaucratic joy of it. If you want to have a more sceptical look at the mainspace article now that you know it's COI-related, no one will stop you, but if you didn't see anything that appeared to need cleanup the first time, it's probably fine. If you think it needs a deeper look than you're willing to give at the moment, you can always add a COI tag. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Tags for a week before draftification?

Is there a consensus or rule that we ought to leave a new article which has two or more non-reliable sources, or reliable sources without sigcov, in mainspace for a week or so before draftifying? That has not been my practice so far, but an admin has advised me this is what we should do.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that is the admin's personal opinion not a policy or guideline. I generally tag an article and leave it 24 hours before draftifying (if appropriate) if there has been no effort to improve the article. John B123 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it must depend upon the level of the issues, plus how actively it is being edited. If it has two our of 18 that are dubious I would probably tag, send a note and wait for at least a week. If it is two out of four I would either tag and draftify, or wait 24 hours or so. Note: the only issue with waiting is whether you remember to recheck. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

In this case the admin was talking about articles with no reliable sources giving sigcov at all, but a number between 2 and infinity of reliable sources that don't give sigcov. I wouldn't draftify any article that had 2 reliable sources with sigcov, even if all the others were total junk. If it's passed WP:GNG, I'd probably just mark it as reviewed.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I am generally of the opinion that if it wasn't so serious you felt compelled to draftify it right away, it's probably not a good idea to draftify it at all. There are many reasons for that, but among them is that many article creators create their article and then disappear forever. I prefer to use draftification as a kindness when the alternative is deletion. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

According to the rules, you can draftify anytime between 1 hour after creation to 90 days after creation. Any additional waiting is an extra courtesy that some patrollers may choose to extend, but is not required. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Automated source verification

Hi all - I am one of the developers of Source Verifier userscript that checks whether citations support claims they are attached to. While it has a number of limitations, quite a few editors found it helpful for good/featured article review and other processes ("the ability to step through the Report systematically made a huge improvement over manually verifying citations in this long technical article"). It seems like it can help new page patrollers too. I ran it on a couple of random articles from New Pages Feed and found inaccuracies (, ) - I've also added full reports on the talk pages where you can see false positives too.

The tool is still a work in progress and I'd be grateful if you tried it and let me know what works and what can be improved. Alaexis_¿question? 12:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible NPR removal request

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

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

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

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

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

Would this article be considered ECR?

Would the Lillian Rosengarten article be considered ECR? A non-ECR user is the only substantial contributor to it, so if it is, it should be CSDed? If not, I'll patrol it. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Is frequently starting sentences with –ing words, a sign of LLM or is that just something that some folks do? (Fleeing..., Working..., Residing..., Marrying..., Seeing..., Frequently writing...) --Northernhenge (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Northernhenge I just put it through GPTzero and got that it was written by a human. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Careful. AI detectors are not reliable. Better to go off experience, WP:AITELLS, and patterns of editing in multiple articles from the same editor. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37, the person as a whole is not ECR, but the parts of the article that pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict are ECR. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering So how should I go about patrolling it? Do I CSD? Do I mark it as reviewed? EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think you could remove all the PIA-related stuff without leaving a sad, useless husk of an article, you could do that, and explain the restrictions to the editor. But if there wouldn't be much of anything left after you do that, CSD is kind of all you've got. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I don't believe there would be a lot left (at least not anything demonstrating notability). EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought from a quick skim earlier. Please do give the editor the standard CT alert when you CSD, but also, a personal note about ECR in specific and offering some sympathy would be nice. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Did as you advised. I feel bad for the user in question, especially since it was an accepted AFC draft that had already been declined once in the past. EaglesFan37 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. In this kind of situation, you can also always let them know that the deletion isn't necessarily permanent, and if they reach XC they can ask for it to be undeleted. Which doesn't take much sting out of it, but may help. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that speedy deleting this article is inappropriate. It is true that it lies within the speedy-deletion criteria, but deletion criteria are intended to provide possible reasons for deletion rather than necessarily to mandate that absolutely everything that meets them must always be deleted (no?), and I do not see that it makes any sense to delete this article for violating the ECR restriction in the absence of specific content problems, especially if created in good faith by a new editor who is unaware of the rule in question. Some weight here ought to be given here to WP:BITE, and to the general principle that rules ought not to be enforced if they involve removing good content from the encyclopedia (WP:IAR?). Dionysodorus (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, WP:ECR does say: Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. I'm not quite sure how you would correctly provoke an administrator into exercising their discretion, but if you were reasonably confident in the article's content otherwise, @Dionysodorus, maybe you could adopt it and remove the CSD template, with a decent edit summary explaining the situation. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dionysodorus@SunloungerFrog An administrator in this thread, @Asilvering, did give the go a head for me to put the CSD template on the article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that if there were any real belief or serious suspicion by editors here that the article included problematic content (whether OR, egregious POV pushing, or something else), CSD would be appropriate, but otherwise I'd agree with Dionysodorus here (especially given the prior AfC approval). In the past I've proposed that new page patrollers take more responsibility for enforcing ECR, and if memory serves I was roundly voted down. Regardless, the editor should be informed of the relevant restriction (which has been done) even if they're given a pass, as a reasoned exception should not turn into persistent flounting of the rule. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks: I've just removed the tag, as any editor is allowed to do, if I am correct in my understanding of WP:CSDCONTEST. The article can of course still be nominated for deletion at AfD, if anyone feels that the content is sufficiently problematic to justify that. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll also point out that ECR provision A2 says Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. -- my understanding is that this discretion essentially also extends to anyone considering CSDing the page _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't cite copyvio in CSD due to spam blacklist

The article Ben Ingram is a 97.71% match for Wiktia. However, I can't tag it for CSD due to Wiktia being on the spam blacklist. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Handled. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AI edit summary log

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

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

UPE-block cleanup

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

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

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

How to deal with incivility after nominating article for deletion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorting the New Page Feed by username?

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

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

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

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

Use of LLM in AfD nom

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

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

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

I recently created articles

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

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

Additional opinions on Tarun Souradeep (astrophysicist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a "Needs Figures" tag?

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

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

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

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

Grammar in curation toolbar

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

4 months and noindex tag still on page

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

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

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

Igbo regalia and headdresses

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