AfC is complicated. It helps newcomers write new articles. It attracts promotion of non-notable topics. It encourages newcomers to think they can write a new article, but does not usually result in either timely or constructive feedback. Newcomers would be better to get autoconfirmed, ten edits and four days, such as by improving content connected to their idea of a newtopic, and then attempt to write a non-orphan article directly into mainspace. Doing this will attract attention of editors likely to be interested in the topic, if it is worthy.
Newcomers do not understand Wikipedia sufficient to write a new page all by themselves edit
- Don't allow, by default, IPs or non-autoconfirmed accounts to write new drafts. Instead, require them to ask for help, or advise them to become autoconfirmed as mentioned above.
- Auto {{Welcome}} every IP that makes four edits in one month.
- Auto {{Welcome}} every registered account that makes one edit.
- Allow IPs to create a talk page for a registered user, or for a contributing IP, or for an article, if the talk page does not already exist. Preferably, auto-create all main user talk pages by auto-welcoming, and auto-create all page talk pages with a talk page template.
AfC reviewers should not be expected to welcome newcomers, or to point them to WP:5P. These things should have happened already. AfC reviewers should maybe check that it happened.
AfC acceptance / rejection process improvement edit
- Set criteria for levels of likelihood of a draft of every becoming acceptable. Currently, they do: (1) Accepted. (2) Declined. I suggest:
- Accepted.
- Accepted, subject to straightforward changes; no need to resubmit, when done move to mainspace. (if it were in mainspace, another editor would have to do these things)
- "Almost there". Do these things and submit again. (if in mainspace, an unskilled editor would be unlikely to fix the problems, andwould probably WP:PROD or WP:AfD the new article.
- "Of unclear merit". Eg of dubious notability and no evidence of notability. Refer to THIS notability (sub)guideline. (Would be deleted from mainspace, certainly if not rescued and improved)
- "Not suitable" Say why, in clear and simple terms. Usually, it is promotion of an aspiring professional person , or of a company, or of a person associated with a company. (Would be speedy deleted)
- In all cases, advise the author that AfC is intended to help, and is entirely optional.
- Reviewers do not write in tagging-templates on the top of the draft, like comments from a teacher to an assignment from a student. That is so pedagogical. It is not treating the contributor with respect, and it is not communicating with the contributor in the style of Wikipedia. Instead, use the draft talk page. Ping the author. Ensure the author is {{welcome}}d.
edit
Pages that are clear promotion are easily deleted by WP:CSD#G11 or AfD. The borderline cases are much more difficult, and of these, I suspect the majority are written by paid editors with some experience. One thing they have learned is to WP:Reference bomb, adding so many references that it is very hard to say that all the references are bad. In practice, at AfD, it takes only two quality sources to pass.
My Idea:
- Put the onus on the writer to provide concise evidence that the topic passes a basic WP:GNG test.
- They must provide two to three (no less than two, no more than three) references that have all of the following characteristics: Reliably sourced, and reputable; Independent of the subject and the other source(s); comments on the topic directly, making value statements involving adjectives, for a length of no less than two full sentences.
What topics does this apply to?
- (1) Currently trading for-profit companies;
- (2) The products of (1). NB. This includes songs and videos of professional artists.
- (3) The CEO or Founder of (1).
- (4) Biographies of rising young people. WP:BLP of people with great abilities or credentials who will likely become leaders shortly. That is, biographies bordering CVs.
If more than three sources are provided, ignore all but the first three.
If two or more of the three sources meet the WP:GNG, accept the article in mainspace, regardless of the amount of fixing still required.
If none of the three sources meet the GNG, reject the submission outright. In mainspace, delete it. In draftspace, strip the AfC templates and blank, noting rejection.
If one of the three sources meets the GNG, explain to the author the difference between that one and the failing source(s), and explain that two quality sources is the absolute minimum. Building an article from a single source means either making a derivative work of that source, or violating WP:NOR.
Products of Undisclosed Paid Editors edit
Undisclosed Paid Editing (UPE) is a violation of WikiMedia's Terms of Use (ToU). Sounds impressive, but it has no teeth. What does one do when encountering UPE product? Seek deletion. Then, others oppose deletion because that content is worthy of keeping, they don't consider the ToU UPE problem as decisive in deletion policy. OK. Don't delete. Quarantine. No need to engage with the formal WP:Deletion policy. Records of the content are free to access, which allows ordinary editors to participate. The content not being live means that the funder of the UPE will not be satisfied with the outcome.
Proposal: Quarantine UPE product edit
If any experienced editor in good standing believes that they have found a page that is UPE product, they may move it to a subpage of WP:Quarantine UPE product. They may move it there from mainspace, draftspace or userspace. In that location, blank the content, and replace the content with identification of the author account, and the statement: "The content in the history of this page has been blanked because it is the product of Undisclosed Paid Editing. It is to remain blanked until the author makes a satisfactory disclose. See WP:Paid editing and WP:COI. Any disagreement about satisfacotry disclosure is to be resolved via the standard WP:DR processes."