Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Old Requests/2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2019[edit]

January[edit]

User:ToBeFree[edit]

I would like to apply for probation, for 100 decisions instead of a time limit. During the last few months, I have helped users with their drafts at #wikipedia-en-help, and I have used the "Copypatrol" tool to identify copyright violations, often in the draft namespace. Pure violations appear as red links in my CSD log; I am unsure how to provide a list of the revision deletions. Via IRC, Snowycats has offered me mentoring as an introduction to the AfC process.
  • In the first phase of the mentoring, Snowycats will provide links to un-processed revisions of drafts that he has previously declined or accepted. Without having a look at the history, I will tell Snowycats via IRC how I would have decided, and why.
  • In the second phase of the mentoring, I will send draft links to Snowycats. Snowycats will check my decisions before I make them on Wikipedia.
  • If both phases have been successful, Snowycat will likely drop supervision for the last part of the 100 decisions.
I will not use the AfC helper script without supervision unless Snowycats has allowed me to do so in phase 2. I have read through the reviewing instructions, the on-wiki documentation of the helper script, and the extended documentation page in the "afch-rewrite" GitHub repository.
After 100 decisions, I'll report back here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I verify that I have offered ToBeFree informal mentorship as a possible new reviewer at AFC. He has demonstrated a high understanding of the instructions for reviewing drafts and has asked appropriate questions on the parts that seemed confusing. I believe he will make a great addition to help with the AFC backlog. If there needs to be further discussion, I can frequently be found on AFC and will check back here if pinged. Thank you! Snowycats (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done +an additional bit that may assist. Lourdes 04:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Riskyishwar[edit]

I can also give a helping hand to improve the project as i have a very common helping nature. Ishwar⊕⊗ 08:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, fails minimum requirements. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe[edit]

I changed my username from User:Catrìona to User:Buidhe. That means that the AfC helper script permissions should be removed from Catrìona and given to Buidhe. Under my previous username I had both AfC and NPR reviewing privileges. Thanks in advance. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) nach buidhe dhut? 10:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azkord[edit]

I was previously declined cause of my afc draft (already solved) , speed CSD tag (which was my mistake & i won't do that again as i have taken care of it and i didn't wanted to bite new editors). I am active in afd and active in new article creation too. If you feel i'm eligible you can grant me this right and i'll help to contribute more regarding article for creation. AD Talk 05:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SyndicaterUI78[edit]

I would like to be an AfC reviewer because I have met the criteria as I have 500 edits on my edit count, my Wikipedia account is approximately 2.42 years old, I have thoroughly read the instructions and guidelines for AfC reviewing, and I have made notes.

Also, I apologize for stupid things I have done in the past, and I have created many drafts that have been declined. I'll promise to try my best in AfC reviewing. Everyone makes mistakes! :)

Thank you for your decision on this request. ShadowFreddy1987 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done with 339 edits to mainspace [1] you don't yet meet the minimum requirements. 500 Mainspace edits, not total edits is the bare minimum experience. I suggest extensive participation at AfD and MfD and another couple hundred article edits before requesting AfC again. Good luck and thanks for your interest in AfC. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With two names this looks like two requests but it is a single post [2]Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Username Needed[edit]

I want to assist in the AfC process. I have done similar things in the past and know the policies. I may have made mistakes with content in the past but I should be good now. [Username Needed] 12:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sheldybett[edit]

Despite having created fewer than 15 articles, I would like to help out at the AfC for the experience since I understand all the instructions, Thanks. Sheldybett (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. AFC is not a place to get experience, and based on the issues posted on your talk page recently (which include issues related to CSD, article creation, AFD, and civility) I do not feel comfortable granting you access at this time. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was busy with other stuff lately but you made a right call, I will not getting anymore issues relating to WP:AfD and WP:CSD because I am trying to get more experience around the area whenever is or no consensus. Before I finish, if you want to grant the AfC rights without disappointment that I starting new articles more than would be happy for you if you don't mind. Sheldybett (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mgbo120[edit]

Hi, I would like to be a reviewer for AFC and help with clearing the backlog. I've been editing since 2015. I am familiar with content policies and guidelines. I have also studied the Reviewing Instructions deeply. Thanks Mgbo120 (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unicorn212[edit]

I would like to help with AfC. I have been around in here for more than 8 years, and very much interested to be in afc. Unicorn212 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done At 392 mainspace edits, you do not currently meet the requirements. Come back when you have at least 500 article edits, and some AfD participation. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This is my second request to be one of the afc memeber, thank you user User:CoolSkittle for your timely advice. i hope i can be good in helping others to clear the backlogs. Unicorn212 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Special:Permalink/878466371#January 2019 — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed duplicate header for second failed application. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boothsift[edit]

Hi, I would like to expand my experience on Wikipedia. I believe I can help with the backlog. It's Boothsift 04:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:InformationvsInjustice[edit]

Hi and thanks for your contributions! I have been trying to better give my time and effort to support the project. Reviewing AfC's is another way in which I can contribute. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teb728[edit]

  • User since 2005; over 37000 edits; active at Help desk, Teahouse, and other forums; active with CSD nominations.
  • I would like to try my hand at reviewing drafts. —teb728 t c 11:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anaxagoras13[edit]

I am a user for more than 10 years now and can surely help to review drafts. Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anaxagoras13, hope you're doing well. Your contributions are appreciated and we would be eager to get you to review drafts at the soonest. While it is not mandatory, AfC reviewers are encouraged to have a significant understanding of our deletion policies. As I don't see any AfD or CSD or Prod participation, could you point me to examples that may repose confidence in us that you have such understanding? AfC reviewing also requires good-faith communication, if not good communication. I'm taking a few examples from the very recent edits. Here, you've dismissed a valid discussion from Sportsfan 1234 with the statement "Stop your nonsense". Here, here and in some other Undo edits, you've reverted the edit without providing an explanation to the IP (or without warning them if it was vandalism). Again, it is not mandatory to do all this; but for AfC reviewers, such a bent is desirable. I'm open to providing you the reviewer status if you give some support to the queries I have asked. Alternatively, I'll request you to edit for around 2-3 months more gaining some experience in AfD/CSD/Prod and also in ensuring that your communication channel is clear, especially when reverting. You can reapply then after 2-3 months, if you feel you've gained satisfactory experience. Thanks, Lourdes 02:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the request.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn. No prejudice against re-application. Primefac (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February[edit]

User:RhinosF1[edit]

Requesting so I can quickly decline AfC's that Blantantly fail and have been created by new users to stop wasted submissions. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RhinosF1, I like your work and your speed. I know what you mean by saying you want to "quickly decline AfCs..." but it may give an impression to most that you're a man in hurry – that's probably not what should come out, especially given your otherwise excellent work. As you've just now started nominating userpages under the CSD criteria and have less than a handful AfD !votes, would you want to first get some more experience in the CSD/AfD/Prod areas before becoming an AfC reviewer? Probably a fortnight to a month more? Do reach out to me if you need any clarification about this response. Warmly, Lourdes 03:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Thank you for your kind words, I understand I don't have much experience with AfDs. I'd like to clarify 'quickly decline' which by that I mean remove AfC submissions that don't meet criteria and I spot created by new users that are promotional or lack sufficient content quicker than manually finding which comment to use and then tagging as declined, notifying the user and then applying CSD tags etc. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 09:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think you are a little too enthusiastic, leading to oddities like Spoka (where you nominated a page for deletion and then voted to keep it). You have much to learn, and I would also prefer to see you gain more experience before re-applying. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for that mess. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kb03[edit]

I would like to become an AfC participant to help ease the 7-week backlog. As this would be my first time doing AfC work I would ask for probation at first to see what it's like. I used to do New Page Review and since I frequently saw tie-ins between the two, I thought I'd give this a shot. I have previously applied for AfC here which was declined by @Lourdes:. I feel like I have improved since then and have done what was recommended. Kb03 (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done on a permanent basis; plus some bit you may find helpful; details on your talk page in a moment. Lourdes 04:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rikster2[edit]

I am a very experienced editor. I am interested in expanding my participation into AfC reviewing - first in my area of expertise (sport), but will also help with the backlog over time. Rikster2 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for your contributions. Lourdes 03:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gaelan[edit]

I've been doing RC patrol on and off for a while now, and I'd love to help with AfC. I'd say my main weak areas are CSD and the specific notability guidelines, but I'm confident I could pick up on those as I go. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gaelan for applying. We're eager to get you to quickly join the AfC reviewing club. Your rollbacking work is very credible. Thank you for that too. You've been inactive for many years and became active only in January (after starting editing in November, absent in December, back in January... so on). Would you want to probably dabble for a month in CSD/Prod/AfD before reapplying here? Experience in deletion policies will be really helpful. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes 03:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes fair enough, will do. Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural  Not done, with no prejudice against reapplying after a month. Lourdes 03:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WallabyWombat[edit]

I was really surprised at the backlog and I would like to help out. I feel like I have a very good grasp on Wikipedia policies such as Neutral POV, BLP, TMI, etc. I routinely do anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia, so I can be pretty confident about what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn't. Thanks for your consideration! WallabyWombatLet's Talk! 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WallabyWombat. Thanks for applying. It would be wonderful to have you join the AfC brigade. Quick question: Have you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants? If not, do give it a quick read. You have less than 500 undeleted article edits (one criteria). Further, while you are upping the edit count, it would be a good time to check out our deletion policy. We'll eagerly await your re-application once you have met the Afc minimum criteria. Warmly, Lourdes 12:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural  Not done. Lourdes 12:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hiwilms[edit]

This would further expand my experience here in Wikipedia as an editor. I'm always looking forward to finding new ways to contribute. Hiwilms (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to know Hiwilms. I notice that you have little article creation experience. I also am not able to trace any CSDs/Prods you might have tagged (as this provides us evidence of your understanding of our deletion policy). You neither have any experience at AfD. You do have the new page reviewer bit but have not reviewed any page till date. Would you want to perhaps gain a bit of experience in areas related to CSD/Prod/AfD or probably in reviewing pages for a month or so and reapply here after that? Gaining such experience would help you significantly during AfC reviewing. Tell me what you think. Lourdes 11:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turn on your CSD and Prod tracking under Preferences. Then you and everyone else can see your accuracy rate like this User:Legacypac/CSD_log at User:Hiwilms/CSD_log You can start by helping to tag spam and other wholly unsuitable pages within AfC pending and declines found at Category:Declined AfC submissions Keeping junk out is as big a part as accepting the good at AfC Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't think the page curation log is functioning well. I have reviewed many articles already using the page curation toolbar and it is not reflecting on the log. Anyway, I'll take your (Lourdes) advice and engage myself more on deletion. Thanks! --Hiwilms (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hiwilms, I've now rectified the page curation log and checked your contributions for curation. You've been at the curation desk for around 5 days or so; so yes, it'll be great that you re-apply in a month after gaining more experience in curation/deletion-related areas. Warmly, Lourdes 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural  Not done, with no prejudice against a reapplication in a month or so. Lourdes 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lourdes. I can now see my page curation log. I was not able to contribute for some weeks because it was finals week. Again, thanks for the help! I greatly appreciate it. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DannyS712 bot[edit]

Bot approved, closing extended (in humour) discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please add my bot to the "bots" section per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 3. I personally already have access to the script, but the bot just removes categories from drafts, and I want it documented as helping with the process (no plans on actually running the bot and having it use the script). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I don't see any AfD experience in the bot. Lourdes 01:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Lol you really got me there (its hard to convey tone through text, but this isn't meant to be sarcastic; that legitimately just made my day) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: but what I meant was to ask if it could be listed under the "Active bots" section, not the "Active reviewers" section --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, I wouldn't want to do that. If you've seen Solo: A Star Wars Story, there's no need to be bitey and call a bot a bot, leave alone classify them as such. As mentioned above, hope your bot gets some AfD experience soon. Lourdes 02:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: I fully understand. It would be against policy to implement my suggestion. Unfortunately, I haven't yet had the opportunity to see Solo: A Star Wars Story - could you send me some info about its plot? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you want me to shift your name from ‘’active reviewers’’ to ‘’active bots’’... Lourdes 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Are you accusing me of being a WP:MEATBOT? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I strongly suspect of both you and the bot being one and the same person. Lourdes 05:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March[edit]

User:Hughesdarren[edit]

User since 2007; over 50000 edits; done some page patrolling/curation, would like to try out at at reviewing draft articles Hughesdarren (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jwslubbock[edit]

User since 2012, over 8000 edits, work for a chapter and want to try reviewing so I understand the process and can encourage other editors to give it a go. --Jwslubbock (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jwslubbock, I don't see 8000 edits, only over 1500 edits. Am I missing something here (some other user name perhaps)? We want you to quickly join the AfC review corps. The standards to become a reviewer are quite minimal (you can seem them here); but we look forward to some evidence of the reviewer understanding deletion policies – their CSD/PROD/AfD participation is a great indicator. As I can't seem to be able to view any significant contribution by you in the CSD/PROD/AfD area, would you be able to point me in the right direction where I can confirm you understand our deletion policies? Alternatively, you can probably indulge in these deletion areas, nominating pages or AfCs (focusing on spam) for deletion or !voting in AfDs for around a fortnight or a month and come back thereon to reapply. Does that sound okay to you? Warmly, Lourdes 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have around 8000 total edits to all Wikimedia projects. I'm sure you can see the breakdown of which projects these are spread over in my user contributions. I've not contributed specifically to AfD, but I have been a Wikimedian since 2012, have done significant volunteering, am a staff member of Wikimedia UK since 2016 and write most of the outreach material for the chapter, which often necessitates a good understanding of policies. As an editor, I'm mostly a creator of new articles, so I have had quite a lot of experience from that side of having my articles reviewed, and almost never get articles I write proposed for deletion. Jwslubbock (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Jwslubbock. Your contributions across the project are appreciated; however, your contributions at the English Wikipedia are what matter in our assessment. I'm adding you to the reviewer list based on your good faith volunteering and my common sense. I should request you to necessarily read up the Deletion policy and understand every aspect of it before initiating reviewing. And of course, don't miss the reviewing instructions. Thanks for volunteering and do reach out for any assistance.
 Done Lourdes 00:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Lourdes:! Much appreciated and I will absolutely do the required reading. Jwslubbock (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EggOfReason[edit]

I'd like to help plow through the backlogs by helping out at AFD. I have experience with CSD and MFD, and I've reviewed the relevant guidelines. Thanks! –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 15:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User has limited experience with new page creation (2 mainspace pages) but a lot of experience managing files here and on commons and has plenty of technical expertise. Limited AfD amd MfD experience but I've noticed them constructively participating at MfD lately. Has CSD log turned on for last several months. Hard to judge if the understand notabilty guidelines but obvious CLUE in many other areas. Trusted user that has been granted various PERMs. I recommend we let them help at AfC. NPP perm would be a natural fit too. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done per Legacypac's assessment; and granted new page reviewer per additional recommendation. Lourdes 00:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smartyllama[edit]

I'd be willing to help clear out the long backlog, I'm familiar with AfD and CSD and have close to 10,000 edits. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and added various bits. Check the message on your talk page (that I'll leave in a bit). Lourdes 00:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandbergja[edit]

I'm just getting back into editing after a break. I'm interested in helping with AfC's backlog, and encouraging new editors to make quality contributions. Sandbergja (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You have just 8 edits in the last two years and 24 edits the year before that. I'm concerned that you don't have a current good handle on notability and deletion process. Turn on your CSD log in preferences, CSD some junk and participate at WP:AFD and WP:MFD, then feel free to reapply in a few weeks so we can confirm you have the right experience. Another useful way to participate to start is to look at pending AfC pages and CSD the spam ones, which will help our backlog. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emjackson42[edit]

Interested in assisting with this project. I have reviewed the documentation. Emjackson42 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Thank-you for your interest here but I don't believe you have enough related experience to be successful in this area just yet. You have just over 500 mainspace edits (the bare minimum) and zero WP:AfD participation for example. I've not looked at WP:MFD stats but I've never seen you there before. Please get some experience at deletion discussions and in the area of WP:CSD. Turn on your CSD and PROD logs in Preferences please so you and others can track your activity in these areas. Feel free to reapply when you have some experience in deletion process for that is critical to understand how to handle drafts. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stevey7788[edit]

I'm one of Wikipedia's earliest members, with about 30,000 edits. I've been editing since 2005, with many hundreds of quality articles created, mostly on linguistics. I would like to help out with AfC in order to improve Wikipedia's quality. Also, I have carefully read the relevant Wikipedia pages on CSD, AfD, PROD, etc., and have thoroughly read the AfC reviewing instructions. I will be continuing to learn as much as I can about the AfC process in order to help assess quality content for Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great AfD stats. Make sure your CSD log is turned on in Preferences User:Stevey7788 and gain some experience there and at WP:MFD where we send a lot of unsuitable drafts. A lot of what we do here is keep out bad content so experience with what gets deleted and why is very important Should be good to add to the reviewer list as far as I can see. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done per Legacypac's assessment. Steve, all of your AfD participation of recent times has been in the past two days, after a gap of 15 years; nevertheless, my review shows very sensible and guideline supported arguments. That works in your favour too. Please follow what Legacypac mentions above. Reach out for any assistance. Thanks, Lourdes 12:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I'll be sure to reach out for help if I'm not sure about something. I'm totally aware that it takes a huge amount of discretion to tread that fine line between reckless inclusionism and reckless deletionism, so I'll take it easy at first and do this carefully. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vijesh sreenivasan[edit]

Editor from 2014,and have done more editing related to south indian movies. Have good experience with draft creation, afd and moving pages. I think my experience will help to clear the backlog's. I have seen lot of articles are pending for to be reviewed, its my pleasure to be one of the afc reviewer. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I don't see sufficent relevent experience yet. Less than 600 edits. Only participated in 4 AfDs. 4 pages created in 5 years. No CSD log or PROD log to assess. Not yet qualified to assess suitablity of content. Look at the suggestions I've made to other users above on the page and feel free to apply again when you have more experience with deletion process. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alarichall[edit]

My experience in and commitment to Wikipedia is most easily evidenced by the fact that I had the privilege to be named editor of the week on July 22, 2018. I'm now looking into ways to deepen my involvement in Wikipedia and would like to try my hand at reviewing accordingly. I have read the guidelines. Alarichall (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over 11,000 edits, several hundred edits on Commons, and very interestingly seems to know Arabic (a useful skill for assessing some drafts). On the other hand, only 4 edits to AfD and no CSD or PROD log to check. Please turn on your CSD and PROD logs in Preferences and spend some time at WP:AfD and WP:MFD to show competence on deletion process. You can help AfC immediately by G11 CSDing advertising in the AfC pending lists to reduce the backlog while getting familiar with the flow of drafts and how we handle them. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, Legacypac. I've had a good look for a place to turn on these logs in my preferences and I can't find it. I've had a look at the help pages and done some Googling too, and haven't worked it out. Can you give a more precise pointer for how to turn on these logs? Ta! Alarichall (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is not intuitive. This should help User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide Legacypac (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Legacypac, that saw me right. You might want to edit the instructions you directed me to to say 'Preferences - Gadgets - Browsing - Twinkle' instead of 'Preferences - Browsing - Twinkle'. Alarichall (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed thanks. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there! I've been doing quite a lot at Articles for Deletion over the last week or so, as you'll see from my articles for deletion log. I hope you will feel that my contributions to those discussions show my competence as a reviewer. I have to confess that I can't bring myself to put my time into deleting harmless but non-notable work, and this is why I haven't nominated anything for deletion. (This is one reason why I decided that, personally, I'd rather be a reviewer, helping people to get work up to standard rather than hunting for things to delete.) I'd like to note additionally that out of the 456 Wikipedia articles I have created, only 8 have been deleted: and those deletions are mostly to do with redirects, and the deleted pages have mostly been recreated. I believe that together, this track record demonstrates that I 'have a good understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various special notability guidelines'. I would be grateful, then, if I could now be given permission to help people bring good new articles to Wikipedia that meet our notability criteria. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lourdes User:Alarichall should be considered. Their request got missed. Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zingarese[edit]

Dear reviewing administrator, I registered this account almost one year ago. Since then, I have created nearly forty articles and have been a significant contributor to 2 Good Articles (including 1 current Good Article Nominee) and one current Featured List Candidate, in addition to having 8 (soon to be 9) DYK credits to my name. I am applying to become a participant in the WikiProject Articles for Creation in order to help review potential new Wikipedia pages in a manner conforming with Wikipedia policies - to help address undesirable content in the most efficient fashion; to give advice to those whose submissions fall short of being suitable for Main space; and to help publish those submissions that are suitable. I have thoroughly read the Reviewing Instructions, and have a deep understanding of all relevant policies. If granted membership, I affirm that I will review pages solely on a volunteer basis and will never solicit or accept any form of compensation in exchange for reviews. Thanks in advance for your consideration, Zingarese talk · contribs 02:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appears strong on content creation which is great. Limited AfD experience but very high match with conclusions. Got it wrong on a small time mayor but not a big deal. Very limited CSDs logged but at least the log is turned on. For a crash course on AfC I suggest going to Category:Declined_AfC_submissions and especially the Advertising tagged pages. Assess them yourself and if appropriate CSD G11 (90+% will be G11 worthy). You will quickly learn what we decline and will be doing a service by removing the pages from being resubmitted or needing to be tagged with a refundable G13 later. The blank, test and joke/hoax areas can also usually be CSD'd. The.n start working the que focussing on declines at first. AFC is different from writng FAs - we deal with spammers and newbies here, but you will find good pages to promote too. Ok to grant access to the tool, but recommend easing into reviewing as described. Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC) An Admin will make the final decision. ping User:Zingarese Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Legacypac, Thanks very much for your assessment, and for the advice. I can affirm you that if granted membership, I will follow your detailed suggestions of easing into reviewing. I feel I have a solid understanding of policies regarding article content and hope that the several dozens of articles I have created or significantly rewritten/expanded show that understanding Zingarese talk · contribs 03:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lourdes did you look at this request? Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 09:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rocky 734[edit]

Hi, i have been editing article for spelling errors, adding contents and verifying the reference, and always try to do according to wikipedia guidelines. I think i can do some work in editing draft articles. I have created few articles but know basics of creating an Article, i can distinct what to write and what not to write in Wikipedia, so that we can fasten wikipedia AFD process. Rocky 734 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done please read what I wrote to the next user User:Rocky 734 as same advice applies to you. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EDG 543[edit]

I dunno seems like fun. I would like to help out Wikipedia by reviewing the articles because I couldn't stand waiting weeks for my article to be reviewed so I don't want other kids to have to wait forever, too. I meet criteria with 17 months and 1070ish edits. EDG 543 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Thank-you for your willingness to help. Before doing AfC approvals you need to establish a track record in deletion process since a large amount of what we do is reject and delete. You can help at WP:MFD (were we send drafts) and WP:AFD where you will build a track record around notability. User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide includes instructions on how to turn on twinkle and start doing CSDs. When you have more demonstrated experience please request here again User:EDG 543 Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Ok, thank you. EDG 543 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Legacypac mentions is right. EDG 543, I have a positive view of you because of your experience in creating articles (I liked reading two of them). So if you get a week or fortnight of experience in the areas that Legacypac has pointed you to, please come back immediately. Thanks, Lourdes 03:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Will do EDG 543 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:QueerEcofeminist[edit]

I have been cleaning copyvio, improving citations and much more, now I would love to participate in reviewing afc's too. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 19:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done just yet. I see some good CSD activity but only one WP:AfD vote and I don't recall seeing you at WP:MFD. Please get a little more experience in deletion process and then by all means request again. See comments to other users for why. Thanks User:QueerEcofeminist Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say, Legacypac, that I'm a little concerned that a string of clearly experienced editors have recently come to this page and are being turned away because they haven't got enough of an AfD/CSD/etc. record, when that isn't actually one of the stated criteria for becoming a reviewer. I have a lot of respect for the work of QueerEcofeminist and would have thought her track record as an editor already shows she would be a good reviewer. I recognise that you're turning people away politely and inviting them to return, and I appreciate that you're being supportive. But I wonder if it would be helpful either to change the criteria for becoming a reviewer so that a need for an AfD track record is transparent, or to be more willing to recognise that people can show they meet the criteria in other ways? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements are listed on the mainpage of this talkpage and include:
  • reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial).
Perhaps we should tighten the requirements on deletion policy but if there is little experience at all in deletion how to show understanding? Legacypac (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely in this case User:QueerEcofeminist/CSD log alone shows a ready understanding of deletion policy? Meanwhile, of the user's 2,387 edits, 96.3% are live. That shows a good general understanding of what is and is not appropriate Wikipedia content. Obviously it's important that reviewers don't wave through lots of inappropriate content or put off newbie editors, but I worry that the gateway to being a reviewer is being made unnecessarily narrow. Alarichall (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I see that the requirement 'reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)' isn't actually listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#How to get involved, where the criteria are a bit different from those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants: it might be good to make these consistent? Alarichall (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Legacypac, I believe the CSD log is good enough for the editor to be welcomed to the AfC group. If you are ok with it, I can get their name added on a probation basis. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes 17:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's good justification, no problem from me. I'm always happy to see new AfC reviewers - I'm only interested in them having a successful experience. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! Alarichall (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done along with the reviewer bit. Lourdes 05:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the update on The Mighty Glen. Removed the editor. I can't understand the alphabetization part. What do you mean? Thanks again, Lourdes 01:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that QueerEcofeminist should be listed (on the project page) in alphabetical order. Sorry for not being clear enough, -- -- -- 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree[edit]

Theoretically, I'm still on self-proposed probation. Somehow. My AfC reviewing tutor Snowycats is inactive since 9 weeks now, both on IRC and Wikipedia, and the second phase has not officially ended yet.
I have stumbled upon Draft:Mervyn Lebor, which I would like to decline for a lack of independent sources that describe the person in detail, and for having no indication that any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria would apply. I would use the "prof" decline template text to do so.
Could someone confirm that carefully reviewing drafts is okay for me to do? Pinging Lourdes who had answered the original request.
I may be overly cautious here because I had asked someone else to adhere to the rules last month: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2019_1#Unapproved_reviewer ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lourdes 09:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen anyone complain about you at AfC help and have not come across any bad declines from you while reviewing. Dig into the backlog and if you are not sure about a page just comment on the page like the rest of us do. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Duke of Nonsense[edit]

This may be a bit too early, but I've seen the amount of very old submissions, and I was wondering if I could use my previous skill of doing AFC again, to help to quell the backload. If it is too early, please tell me. Thank you for letting me back in to this great community! The Duke 21:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pending clearance from Mkdw, Dekimasu, TonyBallioni... Lourdes 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objections if they otherwise meet your criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any problems with this, although separately I wouldn't be inclined to immediately restore the page mover right. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and added The Duke of Nonsense. Lourdes 10:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiAviator[edit]

I know that this project is severely backlogged and wish to improve on the speed of the article creation proccess. I am passionate in aviation and wish to review aviation articles. WikiAviator (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done...WikiAviator, per the criteria, you need a minimum of 500 mainspace edits; plus other stuff. Read it and do apply back once you've reached the requirement. Thanks, Lourdes 10:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz[edit]

Been on enwiki for a while. I am active at AfD, and have a good handle on notability (including SNGs, though I'll admit to not being up to speed on NASTRO as I'm not active in that topic area). I have read the reviewing instruction (and will note that WP:AFCPURPOSE seems to run counter to the Reviewing workflow below which stipulates a number of reasons for rejection that typically won't result in a deleted article at AfD - e.g. NPOV as reasons for failing a submission (POV, unless extremely blatant, is rarely grounds for deletion at AfD).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done.​ Lourdes 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamy Jazz[edit]

Would someone remove my name from the participants list? Thanks Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Revoked — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April[edit]

User:Tagishsimon[edit]

User since 2004; ~60k edits; mainly interested in WiR; familiar with AfD & CSD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon, as you probably know, dealing with AFC means dealing with a lot of people who have no idea what they're doing (or people who do know what they're doing and are hoping to pull a fast one). Obviously every situation is different, but I find it a bit concerning the levels of snark and/or sarcasm in posts like this and this. Are you willing to take the time to explain to a new editor how their drat can be improved? Primefac (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're concerned that I'm snarky to someone whose MO is to vandalise articles labelling subjects as nazis and who on being reverted wade into my talk page saying "Power tripping is not mature, child." How exactly does that pertain to AFC? Let me reassure you that I have a wide range of responses, from the ascerbic to the positively helpful [3] [4]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize for not seeing the other pretty spectacular replies you've made to others higher up on your talk page. I'm not sure why I stopped after the second thread I linked (it's pretty obvious the "power trip" poster deserves that level of snark).
 Done for the record. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Thank you; I'm suitably gratified that my snark stopped you in your tracks ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mu301[edit]

I'm interesting in helping out, esp. with science and technology related drafts. mikeu talk 12:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at the backlog. --mikeu talk 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA[edit]

I want to help AFC as it's usually filled with backlog. I've read through and understood the reviewing instructions of AFC, and I've done some CSD and AFD. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. This is mainly for tenure reasons. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EggRoll97[edit]

I'd like to help out here. I believe I meet the requirements set forth on the participants page. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done While you meet the numerical requirements, I'm concerned about the rather dismal AFD stats and the fact that most of your edits are vandalism-related (which isn't a problem, but doesn't really demonstrate your knowledge of content requirements). This guide is a good guide for ways to demonstrate the other AFC areas. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AR.Dmg[edit]

From last year August I'm a editor of Wikipedia.. I like to assist Wikipedia.. i know their are much qualified editor... I repeat Wikipedia policy and had readed the Wikipedia AFC guidelines. Please take ur time for considering me AR.Dmg (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfC reviewers are probably expected to have a more than decent command over written English. I see quite a few mistakes in your request above. How confident are you in your English skills? Thanks, Lourdes 03:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm a user since last year; 950+ edits; mainly interested or you can say I like to edit for mobile, song, movies, series, and living persons article. But I'm not bounded by any limit but actually I'm interesting in helping out, esp. with mobile, song, movies series and BLP related article and drafts.
I apologize for the mistake which I did previously during the last request. I have gone through all the guidelines of the Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability AR.Dmg (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned about your written English but I have a suggestion that will help the AFC project immensely with out requiring you to write many comments and better prepare you for direct AFC work. See User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide Thanks for your willingness to help User:AR.Dmg. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, as I am also concerned about your communication abilities and grasp of English; the previous question about abilities was ignored. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olivettilly[edit]

I write a lot for wikipedia, I am a woman, I am trying to make a difference, wikipetan is my role model in life

i am 25 all i do is work at making good articles and content of unbaised perspective and I try to be the future. I would like to gain the authority to be a trusted perspective on wikipedia. this is a good place for me to proove that I have what it takes. Thank you Olivettilly I have 900 + edits Olivettilly (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You should have at least 500 main space edits before you apply here. Additionally, you may wish to take a re-look at edits like this and perhaps improve the formatting of the same. Thanks, Lourdes 06:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamy Jazz[edit]

I would like to be readded to the participants list, after I asked to be removed. I would like to use this to deal with submissions I come across when new page patrolling. I have reread the instructions (etc.) to ensure I am fully up to date with the project and its processes. I used the AfC helper script mostly when patrolling new pages before. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Lourdes 05:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ffbond[edit]

I teach a class on Language, Technology and the Internet, as part of which my students create or enhance pages about linguistics. I feel I should review the pages they create. I only have around 1,300 edits, but 99% of them are are still there. Through my class we have enhanced or created over 30 pages. I used to be active on AfD (mainly improving pages I thought should not be deleted so that they would not be deleted, but voting for delete when I thought a page was not notable), although I rarely find the time for that now. I have read and understood the instructions.
Francis Bond (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ffbond, there is no actual requirement for pages to go through AFC, and it would be seen as a rather large conflict of interest to review (as an AFC reviewer) the pages of students who you are mentoring. You are, of course, welcome to review the pages written by your students, but if that is the case I would recommend not using the AFC process. Do you have any interest in helping out in general with the AFC project? Primefac (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I am interested in helping out in general with AFC, but in practice know I will struggle to find the time. If you think that reviewing my students' pages is a conflict as an AFC reviewer, then maybe better I give it a miss for now. Francis Bond (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, with no prejudice towards requesting access in the future. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flooded with them hundreds[edit]

Resuming editing after a hiatus and a block phase. I'd like to rejoin the WikiProject again. Thanks. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, indeffed. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SounderBruce[edit]

User since 2007 with over 52,000 edits, plenty of experience creating new pages myself as well as monitoring (and PROD/CSD/AFD as needed) other new pages. SounderBruce 21:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masumrezarock100[edit]

I meet the basic criteria. I have been helping with WP:FFU and WP:AFC/Redirects. Access to the script would help me a lot. I have done some WP:AFD nominations and I would like to help out more. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 11:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Sorry for pinging you. Could you review my request? Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 04:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. Can you provide me evidence of your understanding our deletion policy? Thanks, Lourdes 05:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: I have done some AfDs and currently training under Girth Summit about counter-vandalism at User:Girth_Summit/CVUA/Masumrezarock100. Thanks. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 05:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-vandalism is a different beast. A significant amount of your AfD experience is very recent, relatively less in number and most of your nominations have been kept. I would recommend dabbling in AfDs and even curation for a fortnight or so and then re-applying. Thanks, Lourdes 06:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Well he did teach and test me about AfD and CSD. Thanks for the reply. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 06:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Please see my response to your message on my user talk page asking me to review your application as an AFC participant for my details and thoughts. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May[edit]

User:Valereee[edit]

Just thinking I might be able to help with the backlog from time to time when I'm not on a research/writing binge. I meet all criteria, have done other types of reviewing and can follow instructions. I have done some work at AfD and page curation. I have quite a bit of patience dealing with new users. valereee (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, please fix alphabetical order (also for QueerEcofeminist, please). -- -- -- 21:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. please also remove Legacypac; account has been blocked. -- -- -- 21:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by User:Lourdes. Thanks (and "your welcome" for thanking me), -- -- -- 22:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapablo[edit]

I have been editing for a while now, i understand all inclusion guidelines and deletion policy of Wikipedia. I have a reasonable AFD Stats, i have read through WP:AFCR and clearly understand it. I frequently help at Stale draft and WP:NPP. I hope to help reduce the increasing backlog here at AFC. Lapablo (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with the reviewer bit added for effect. Thanks for applying. Lourdes 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yorkshiresky[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights

Registered since 2006. 6,000+ edits and created 340 main space articles. Keen to help clear some of the AFC backlog. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting non-admin review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would suggest a probation of 40 reviews followed by another probation of two months, pending the results of which he can be permanently inducted.
No AfD experience and leaving about 20; all of those articles were produced way long back. The notability guidelines have changed a lot (esp. NCORP and NBIO) and I can't ascertain whether you are aware of the policy-changes and the current interpretation of them.
There's no recent patrolling -- maintenance-tagging and all that.
Your activity outside main/talk-space is very limited and that does not enable me to assess your communication-skills to a large extent. Of the few exchanges that I saw in the recent years, there's nothing of a red-flag, though.
At any case, I notice that you specialize in areas of art, songs, films, music et al and seem to have a very good grasp about the topics (notability, writing in an optimum manner and associated stuff) which leaves me impressed. So, as long as you stay within your comfort zone i.e assessing notability of topics, that are within your domain-of-expertise, we shall be fine enough. (If you wish to broaden the horizons, please participate in AfDs, listen to arguments by other longstanding users, how the policies are being interpreted and all that.) ∯WBGconverse 12:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yorkshiresky, I view your application in a positive light. One of the key points we reiterate is that you should provide evidence of reasonable understanding of our deletion policy. Would it be possible for you to show us any such evidence? Thanks, Lourdes 17:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural  Not done with an encouragement to gain perhaps a month or two of experience in understanding our deletion policy and re-applying. Please reach out to me on my talk page for any help. Thanks, Lourdes 02:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nolan Perry[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights is to help with the Backlog - Nolan Perry Yell at me! 14:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting non-admin review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 Not done All I see is fiddling with wiki-projects, portals, templates and own user-space-stuff along with some edits about schools, sprinkled in. ∯WBGconverse 12:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also that you have ignored the banner at the top of the page, which asks you to read the criterion (of which the second demands 500 un-deleted mainspace-edits) reflects poorly on you. ∯WBGconverse 12:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I misread my edit count on Xtools, I get numbers mixed up easily - Nolan Perry Yell at me! 16:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nolan Perry, don't be disheartened. Gain some experience across the areas mentioned in our criteria, especially our deletion policy and notability guidelines. Feel free to reach out to me for any assistance in the meanwhile. It would be good to see you apply back in a month or two if you have gained sufficient experience. Warmly, Lourdes 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural  Not done, with no prejudice towards a re-application once the editor meets our criteria. Thanks, Lourdes 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SSSB[edit]

To put it simply I wish to hepl with the backlog. I am familiar with all the relevent policies and guidelines corcerning content that should(n't) be in articles and I am familiar with what consitutes notabillity. Further I meet all criteria, am patient and assume good faith and have some expirence in page curation through Special:NewPagesFeed. SSSB (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting non-admin review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 Not done
I don't see much of experience in AfDs. Roughly, 50% of pages, created by you have been deleted.
This is a textbook-example of bite-y tagging and mis-interpretation of policy -- the title easily indicates the subject. And, you are slapping an A7 a single minute after creation, really?
This shows that you do not understand our notability policy; a subject is either notable or not and independent of the article-quality. More lack of understanding about our notability guidelines is evident from your handling of Hamari Bahu Silk. Half of the PROD-log is filled with tagging(s) on an assumption of notability being dependent on the current conditions of the article and doesn't exhibit the slightest evidence of an abidance by WP:BEFORE.
In a nutshell:- you are deleting stuff that is notable by a mile and introducing stuff that's non-notable.
These two threads are perfect examples of being a jerk -- wrong policy-wise and trying to be condescending, on top of that. Pathetic communication-skills. And, this is astonishing (to be mild) even if I exclude the bitey tagging.
To conclude, consider it as a warning to refrain from any further patrolling activities (including but not limited to moving drafts to mainspace, tagging PRODs and CSDs et al) for an undefined period of time, unless you can exhibit your competency. ∯WBGconverse 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric ever heard of WP:AGF or WP:BITE. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give these meta-activities a break and jump into writing quality content. You are making an absolute mess of it over these spheres and on the top of that, not learning from your mistakes, despite being continually pointed by others. Shall you continue, your editing privileges might be affected. ∯WBGconverse 14:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, please stop declining requests from hereon. We don't promote aggressive discussions at this board, and you're very, very aggressive. Thanks, Lourdes 06:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SSSB, I would suggest that you slow down and calmly dabble in CSD, AfD or related areas that would provide you a firmer understanding of our Deletion policy and notability guidelines. Please feel free to re-apply in a month or so after you have gained a stronger basis. Thanks, Lourdes 06:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural  Not done, with no prejudice to re-application once the editor can provide evidence of meeting our criteria. Thanks, Lourdes 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geoscientific[edit]

Hi, I am already a participant, but I changed my user name from G.scaringi to Geoscientific. Now the AFCH script for reviewing manuscripts doesn't work any more. Can you please update my user name in the list of editors?

Thanks! Geoscientific (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Lourdes 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:UtopianPoyzin[edit]

I was hoping I could help get this backlog of articles cleared, and I'm looking to see what I can do to help out. Granted, the AFC list isn't miraculously disappear by adding me to the WikiProject, but I still would like to see what I can do. Always of service.

UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some background; while I have been editing primarily video game article recently, a majority of my edits come into the chemistry/geology field. Because of this, many of the big article names have since been created, and there isn't much for me to add when it comes to new pages, hence my whopping page creation of 3 (according to xtools, but a wikipedia search of pages created by me shows more for some reason). Two of those were justly taken down by WP:BALL because I did not know where to stop, but I can assure you all that I do have a good understanding of the AfD rules, and speedy deletion criteria. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UtopianPoyzin, thanks for applying. You current don't qualify under the minimum criteria listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants (e.g. you haven't reached 500 main space edits; and we would also need to see actual evidence of your understanding of the deletion policy). Therefore, I would suggest that you gain experience in areas like Page Curation, AfD, CSD, Prod and continue editing the way you are; and perhaps you can reapply in a couple of months? Does that sound okay? Warmly, Lourdes 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whelp, I kind of just assumed that my edit count was the pages in mainspace, but it turns out I'm barely halfway. Well then, looks like I got a lot to go. How should I prove my understanding of the AfD criteria? I mean, I have participated there on a number of times, but how much is considered enough? (I was originally going to review the Draft:Micro_Saint_Sharp article, but then I realized that I should apply here. Am I still allowed to comment on the articles, or do I have to be a AfC participant to do that as well?) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We suggest that any editor wishing to review articles register here first; this is to ensure that there is at least a small control over the quality of reviews. Having said that, you can probably continue editing (reach the minimum edit count at least in main space); and continue your AfD participation. It's not just the number of AfDs (in pure numbers, I'll probably be looking at 10-20 more AfDs from your side to give a fair count), but the quality of your arguments in the AfD, which should provide evidence of understanding our notability guidelines and deletion policy. If you're up to it, have at it in the CSD/Prod/Curation fields, if those interest you. Thanks, Lourdes 04:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural  Not done with encouragement to re-apply in due course, maybe a month. Please reach out to me on my talk page for any assistance. Thanks, Lourdes 02:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CptViraj[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights - I have knowledge of all deletion criteria (I don't have twinkle set up because i'm on mobile, so i don't have logs but i'm trying to set it up and i know how to use script on mobile) and i've also created articles! My favourite topics are Music , Video Games , Bollywood , Social Media. I have 1800+ edits. - CptViraj (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can set up Twinkle on mobile by switching to desktop view (the link to desktop will be at the bottom of any page). CoolSkittle (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CoolSkittle: Hmm! But it's not working perfectly. Website output is glitching, But i'll find some way to do it! Thanks! - CptViraj (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to the recent history of copyright violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrClog[edit]

I would like to help out. I have written some articles myself, as well as having helped at the Help Desk a bit, so I have some experience dealing with new and unexperienced editors. I did some CSD and AfD as well. I read and understand the reviewing guidelines. MrClog (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC); small edit at 12:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to connect all your alternative accounts on your main account's user page? This promotes transparency and allows us to review your application fairly. Lourdes 01:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes, done. It is only 1 account. --MrClog (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards declining on the basis of some questionable editing concerns listed on the talk page archives; mainly outing and BLP concerns. AFD/CSD looks okay, though. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, outing? I suppose you are talking about this incident. In this case, an editor was making edits at WP:DRN where they signed with a different username than their own (which was viewable in the history). In this case, I changed the filing editor as showed on DRN to their actual username. Because this username was (and still is) the username they have on Wikipedia, it isn't "personal information", because anyone could find the user's real username in the page history of WP:DRN. I do not know where you found any "BLP concerns". Could you link to the relevant section? --MrClog (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't know they wanted their real username to be hidden, I thought it was some sort of mistake. --MrClog (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was User_talk:MrClog/Archive_1#An_attempt_to_address_your_question. I didn't investigate it fully, which is why I haven't given a straight "yes or no" reply, but the wording made it sound like there were some BLP issues. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, ah, that's not a BLP issue. I responded to a WP:3O at Talk:Appeal to nature. The editor that placed the message responded with That didn't address my concerns, but then you're a new editor. I then asked what he meant with that. He then responded with the message on my talk page. The section about BLP was copied from his standard welcome. Do note that in the RfC that followed, everyone except for themselves agreed with me (so it's not like I had some ridiculous opinion as a response to the 3O request). --MrClog (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC); edited 20:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ilyushka88[edit]

I would like to be accepted as a user of AfC helper script. I think I have enough experience in editing, and this would help in reviewing new articles pending review. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 00:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu[edit]

Hi greetings, I am in NPP School training and I would like to become a part of AfC and using Helper script. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I would ask that you keep Barkeep49 in the loop on your reviewing and possibly consider it part of your NPP training. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac. I had indeed suggested he do this as the next part of our work and plan to be working closely with him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June[edit]

User:Delta fiver[edit]

Hi there, I've been a Wikipedian for a while now and I've have gained experience over time, I have made a plethora of mistakes involving copyright material in the past and I've learned the policy of uploading images using the right source, I think I'm ready to take on this challenge and to help Wikipedia out, to the best I can. User:Delta fiver (talk) , 14:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delta fiver You've been here almost exactly three months, which is a concern for me but more importantly, I don't see any AFD experience and you only have 268 total edits to mainspace, which doesn't meet the "500 undeleted edits to articles" requirement. I think you should probably give it a few months and some more experience. Praxidicae (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I have uploaded one article and the others are still pending a review, one is a few months old and hasn't been reviewed as yet, but if you say so ill gain more experience and return, thank you. User:Delta fiver (talk) , 15:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now; does not meet minimum requirements. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Javert2113[edit]

I seek to better support and guide new users regarding new articles. Additionally, I wouldn't mind helping out with the backlog. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AR.Dmg[edit]

I would like to join this WikiProject Articles for creation. I have a total of 1500 edits out of which 1300+ edits are live and 150+ edits are deleted. I am interested to and want to invest my time in reviewing AfCs if I'm eligible. Please assist. Thanks for your consideration. AR.Dmg (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AR.Dmg You don't appear to have a single edit to AFD, which makes me a little uncomfortable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I do assure you that I will gain experience in the field which I'm lacking behind. AR.Dmg (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. Gain the experience first (as has been suggested for other permissions you've requested) and then ask for them. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:John M Wolfson[edit]

I believe I have the experience necessary for reviewing Articles for Creation. I have some experience in AfD and am autopatrolled. I've been here for about a year and have ~6,000 mainspace edits. I believe I would be able to aid the project and help clear the backlog with my reviews. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MJL[edit]

Well, there's clearly a backlog, and I think I can help. I normally monitor Special:AbuseLog, but it gets frustrating to only be able to nominate the vandalism for speedy deletion. Pages like this are obviously not ready for the mainspace, but I'm really not supposed to touch the review unless I'm a participant. This request is to be rectify that situation.
Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malick78[edit]

Hi, I'd like to be able to review newly proposed articles. I've created over a hundred articles myself, and have been on Wikipedia for probably a decade or so. Malick78 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Malick78 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malick78, thanks for applying. While I'm inclined to add you, I just wanted to check two quick points: (1) if you were conversant with our deletion policy; (2) would you be able to respond quickly to queries, given that you've had only around 14 or so edits throughout the year. Thanks, Lourdes 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done with no prejudice towards re-opening this upon reply; no response in almost two weeks. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viztor[edit]

Hi, I'd like to became a afc reviewer. I've been on Wikipedia for several years and have been quite active recently. I have over ten thousands edits combined globally. I'm familiar with pillars of wikipedia and content policies. Thanks and hope to contribute.Viztor (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Viztor (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were a vote, I'd very strongly oppose it at this point, based on several areas of concern related directly to AFC, but also apparent hat collecting (+[5][6]) Viztors AFD stats are very, very poor and while not a requirement for AFC, it generally indicates suitable knowledge, which his/hers do not. A quick browse of their talk page, especially regarding their own noms reveals I am not alone in this. Additionally, you have only been active here for about a month and a half - which make up the bulk of your 1k edits on this project. I don't believe that is a good enough demonstration of experience. Praxidicae (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done for now. While I do appreciate the thousands of edits on other language projects, enwiki has a very different set of standards compare to pretty much everyone else. This disconnect can be seen, as mentioned above, primarily in your AFD experiences, but it indicates that you might not have as deep a knowledge of enwiki inclusion and deletion policies to make a good reviewer at this time. Please keep up the good work, and please re-apply when you've gotten some more enwiki experience. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Primefac. I'd like to ask for a re-evaluation after an additional month. I am active x-wiki and my recent AfD votes are more consistent with the community consensus. I do take a harder stance that what the consensus may eventually find, however, these votes are all well-reasoned based on policy, for example, I nominated Chop bar for deletion because I find no significant difference of it and other eatery and bar as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however someone reminded me of other similar entities but have a separate article when there is only a small difference, hence I withdrawn the nomination; Other than these, most of the situations when my vote is not consistent with the final vote, they are of a close call. As much as I am trying to be more consistent with the conventions, some of these are simply not laid out straight in policies. Moreover in this case, I don't think that will be a particular problem, as we are to include articles and I don't think in any cases I will accept suspicious submission that may have negative impact on our overall content quality. In addition, I have worked to help new editors, adding sources to their articles etc. I feel I am more ready and hope to be helpful of the program, thank you. Viztor (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Praxidicae; requesting her review. Lourdes 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done a full check but I still stand by my original statement with regard to all the hat collecting etc...and am still pretty concerned about this. I also think that they need more experience. The only reason they meet the time requirement is because they happened to register an account several years ago, not because it was in use. These AFD percentages also don't inspire any confidence in me in their ability to determine suitable inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why there were questions and disputes on my talk page are because I actually use "these hats" I "collect" therefore I do not think there is reason to question my intention to use them. I also do not think that I "meet the time requirement" because of I happened to register an account is accurate, the requirement is only 90 days, and I was clearly active x-wiki for a lot more than that. As for the AfD stats, it doesn't take that much time to check for specific reasons where my argument do not match the result, I believe these arguments may not match the final decision but they are well-reasoned based on policy. In any case, you could say I am more strict, but I see no reason that will be bad for the AfC process per se. Viztor (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Viztor, I have to give value to Praxidicae's review so I am uncomfortable adding you. However, I can add you on probation for a month; and you reapply on your own when the month is getting over, so I or others can see your contributions. Does this work for you? Please ping me while responding. Lourdes 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes, thanks for the response. I don't think Praxidicae has made fair comments, most other users applied with similar amount of edits on enwiki are approved without objection, however, somehow it seems my x-wiki experience was used against me, even though it should serve as an indication of dedication to the project overall. Of course, I do understand your concern, and if that's what you find to be the best thing to do, I have no objection to that :) viztor ✦ 15:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Probation for one month. Please reapply after that. Thanks, Lourdes 16:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EggRoll97[edit]

Based on a recommendation on my talk page to review AfC submissions, and given the current astonishing backlog, I'd like to be approved to review the submissions. I believe I've adequately fixed the denial reason in my previous request, which was a lack of specific content requirement experience. It was suggested that, while I meet the requirements as listed, that I should further my CSD experience, which I believe I have accomplished. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:94rain[edit]

I would like to participate in AfC drafts reviewing to help with the backlog. I believe I have had a good grasp of the deletion policy and process, key notability guidelines and WP:AFCR. I would accept submissions that are unquestionably notable to reduce the amount of work for more experienced reviewers so that they can focus on handling more complex cases. When declining, I would try to write comments to give guidance on improvement and treat newbies with kindness and patience. I would simply stay away from cases that I am not sure about before I have gained more experience over time. 94rain Talk 08:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:StudiesWorld[edit]

I think that I have a generally good understanding of the criteria and I would like to help. However, I will acknowledge that I have made some erroneous deletion noms, due to a lack of access to some sources. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ceethekreator[edit]

I would like to help with the backlog. I actively take part in AfD and have an understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks Ceethekreator (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masumrezarock100[edit]

I was told to gain some experience in page curation and AfD and I believe I have accomplished that. However due to my lack of understanding of notability guidelines at the very beginning, I made some ugly nominations. I think I have a good grasp on the other deletion process (WP:PROD and WP:CSD) as well. My NPR right was removed by DeltaQuad, as I canvassed that time (I wasn't aware of this policy at that time). I would like to help with the huge backlog. Also it will help me to close FFU requests quickly which I've been doing manually all this time. Masum Reza📞 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing, but I'm a little concerned with going over the head of an experienced reviewer (see "F&F" requests). Primefac (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I apologize for that. I echoed your sentences because I never really heard of furious series. Masum Reza📞 13:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for lack of transparency (or, alternatively, lack of understanding of straightforward warnings). Your NPR right was not removed for canvassing; it was removed because of various administrators refusing your earlier requests – due to varied reasons, including copyright infringement. Please read this section on my talk page and, in my opinion, come back after a reasonable period of time. This just seems like a fetish for you than anything else. Thanks, Lourdes 11:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: I understand. For how long you want me to gain experience? Masum Reza📞 11:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6 months? Lourdes 16:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bogger[edit]

I've seen a few articles worthy of inclusion and would like to review them. Bogger (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July[edit]

User:SuperSwift[edit]

Got a recommendation on based on recent AfC activities to review AfC submissions, and for the sake of the current backlog, I hope to be approved to review the submissions. I met all requirements and I'm willing to assist in reducing the workload. SuperSwift (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SuperSwift, thanks for applying. While I'm inclined to add you to the list, I wanted to check quickly how well do you know our deletion policy? As you have no curation, CSD, AfD or PROD experience, it's hard for me to determine the same. We require the reviewers to have a reasonable command of the policy. Thanks, Lourdes 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lourdes, I know so much about all of the above listed despite the fact that I've not engaged in them as I was only active in article creation. SuperSwift (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you want to perhaps engage for a fortnight or so in any of the deletion related areas I've mentioned, just so that you (and I) are comfortable? To be clear, I'll still add you onto the list. I'm just saying it's preferred if you get some practical experience in the deletion related areas. What do you say? Thanks, Lourdes 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok Lourdes. Will do as you suggested. Thanks SuperSwift (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Lourdes 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lovkal[edit]

Hello, I'd like to help clear the backlog of unreviewed AfC articles. I'm a frequent New Pages patroller and so I know that a lot of spammy/non-notable articles would get through if it weren't for us reviewers. The AfC system is something that could definitely help us prevent low-quality submissions from taking up space on enwiki. lovkal (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 16:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lourdes, please fix Alphabetical order. -- -- -- 20:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed by user:Lourdes. Thanks, -- -- -- 08:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Crossin[edit]

I've previously worked at AFC and have become active again (but it's been some time!), and would like to do so going forward to help with the backlogs. I am familiar with AFC processes and deletion policies. Steven Crossin 21:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, welcome back. It is good to have experienced editors support the AfC desk. We require that Afc reviewers have reasonable command over the deletion policy, amongst other things. In the time you have been away, our deletion policy has changed, perhaps not significantly, but enough to confuse someone who may have just come back. My suggestion is that you may involve yourself in CSD (and perhaps even Page Curation) or PROD areas for a fortnight or so, before taking up reviewing full-time. Whether you take up my suggestion or not, I shall still add you to the Afc reviewers list, but it would be preferable you gain deletion experience. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes 23:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's not a bad idea. I used to do new page patrol as well, so that's something I'll look at too. Cheers. Steven Crossin 04:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks, Lourdes 16:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishal Shrestha[edit]

I have been helping fight against vandalism in mainspace for a good time and I would like to contribute in reviewing AFCs to reduce the current backlog. I am well aware of the reviewing policies and a good understanding of deletion policies. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Thanks for applying. It is encouraging when relatively new editors apply to become Afc reviewers. However, we have a minimum and minimal bar; e.g. you need at least 500 main space (article) edits before we consider you. Please read AFCCRITERIA and apply back after gaining the same, and some more. If you need any help in the meanwhile, do reach out. Happy editing. Thanks. Lourdes 23:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:William2001[edit]

The backlog needs some help, and I am willing to help out. I meet the requirements, read the reviewing instructions, and have some experience fighting vandalism as well, although this is not directly related to AfC. Thanks. William2001(talk) 02:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CodeLyoko[edit]

Hello, I am CodeLyoko, formerly TheMesquito and I would like to request to be added again due to the fact my username is now changed and I can no longer use the helper scripts. Proof of rename here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes#Requests_involving_merges,_usurps_or_other_complications CodeLyokobuzz 06:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Almy[edit]

I feel being a part of the Articles for creation project would allow me to help make a bigger contribution to Wikipedia. So far on Wikipedia I've mostly been reverting vandalism and updating stats on sports articles and such. I'd like to make a bigger impact in the Wikipedia community than just doing that. Almy (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide us some evidence that you have a reasonable grasp of our deletion policy and notability guidelines (e.g. CSD/PROD/AfD/Curation experience; or in creating articles that are reliably sourced). Thanks, Lourdes 02:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now, no reply. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utopes[edit]

Hello, I'm Utopes! A couple months ago, I petitioned myself for the role under the username UtopianPoyzin. After not meeting the criteria necessary at the time, with less than 500 mainspace edits, I was told I could reapply in a month or two after I had edited more often, and participated in more AfD discussions. As time progressed, I have been getting more edits under my belt at a consistent rate, and now have the necessary 500 mainspace edits. Additionally, I have been active in the areas of AfD, as well as RfD, which has allowed me to further my understanding of the deletion policy. Following my first application for AfC, I joined the Recent Changes Patrol and gained Rollbacker and Pending Changes rights, and gained all-around editing experience over these last couple months. All-in-all, I believe I have met the requirements that User:Lourdes provided from my AfC application 2 months ago. I still would like to help tackle the backlog of AfC articles that need reviewing. Thank you for taking the time to look at my case again! Utopes (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide us some evidence that you have a reasonable grasp of our deletion policy and notability guidelines (e.g. CSD/PROD/AfD/Curation experience; or in creating articles that are reliably sourced). Thanks, Lourdes 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now, no reply. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: and @Primefac:, sorry for the extended delay. (Members of my Troop and I were on a hiking trip in Philmont, and I posted this before we left. I did not plan for additional questioning). I have participated in 24 AfD's, and approximately 30 RfD's (there is no RfD tracker, but I know I give my comments there more often, as I find the solutions to be more clear cut for redirects). In these discussions, I have demonstrated knowledge of the fundamentals of the deletion policy for articles and redirects, and properly reference the appropriate guideline that the article does/does not follow wherever necessary (GNG, NOR, etc.). As for outside of AfD discussions, I have authored several properly referenced articles on chemical compounds, with reliable sources where applicable. If there is any other concern, just let me know. I thought I answered everything with my first post, but I'd be happy to answer to any other inquiries. Utopes (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I am watching this page, ping me to let me know if this is seen. I get that my case has been an open and closed book in my absence. Utopes (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Interstellarity[edit]

I hold the new page reviewer rights on Wikipedia. Since there isn't much pages to review, I would to participate in AFC and believe I meet the minimum requirements for it. Interstellarity (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Tell me a bit more about AfC and what you intend to do here. Nick (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: I am not interested in creating articles here. I would like to review new articles to see whether they are suitable for the encyclopedia. I would also like to do new pages patrol here when the Page Curation has a low backlog. Interstellarity (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: If you're not interested in creating articles here, how would you come to know whether submitted draft articles are suitable for the encyclopedia ? Nick (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: I would use this flowchart. The same one used in the NPR process. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued by the idea that there aren't many new pages to review. – bradv🍁 22:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity, please provide us some evidence that you have a reasonable grasp of our deletion policy and notability guidelines (e.g. CSD/PROD/AfD/Curation experience; or in creating articles that are reliably sourced). Thanks, Lourdes 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Please see my edits and my deleted edits. I have recently been tagging pages for speedy deletion and most of the time the pages are deleted. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interstellarity, I am also very intrigued by this statement: I hold the new page reviewer rights on Wikipedia. Since there isn't much pages to review... Since you are clearly not aware that there is a 7,000 page backlog at NPR, you are obviously not interested in patrolling. Please let me know so that I can remove you from the user group because we have a bloated list of over 700 New Page Reviewers and only two of them are doing 90% of the work... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: I still would like to review new pages, but it seems like the work is done. Interstellarity (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity, right now, 20:51, 22 July (my time zone) there are exactly 6481 total unreviewed pages. So as you don't appear to have a clue what's going on, you won't be needing the NPR right. OK? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand the fundamental differences between basic deletion criteria as of yesterday, I am declining your application for AfC. Your NNPR right expires in October anyway.
 Not done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Etzedek24[edit]

I'd like to come on board and help clear the backlog. I've got a pretty good understanding of deletion policy, and receieved temporary rights here in the past. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're already on the list, but apparently never got checked at the end of the probationary period. If Lourdes or other editors want to comment on past reviews (based on the original request as well as this very recent removal of NPP) we'll consider this the "probationary review". If I get a chance I'll do the same. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily field questions about either, particularly with the NPP removal. I am traveling, though, and may not respond in a timely manner. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually like to go by Bbb23's comments and stand here. Thanks, Lourdes 03:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sparrowhawk64[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights: I'm a semi-regular editor and have been a wiki user and contributor for years...and I've got some free time. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. While you technically meet the minimum editing requirements, the vast majority of your edits (i.e. all but 100) came before 2010; policy has changed a large amount since then and there's simply no recent evidence of experience in the "article creation and deletion" aspect of Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MurielMary[edit]

Hi, I've been a WP editor for a few years now and specialise in creating new biographies. I think I have a good handle on matters of notability guidelines and acceptable sourcing and I'm happy to help with dealing with the backlog here. MurielMary (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August[edit]

User:AugusteBlanqui[edit]

Hi there. I've got a background in history and a good grasp of NPOV and the various notability guidelines. I've been editing for 3+ year--I'm not the most prolific editor but I would like to start helping out on the 'coalface'. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Usedtobecool[edit]

I have been looking for a way to help out, and to that end, requested pending changes reviewer right some time ago. But that one, turns out, has low to non-existent backlog problems. I spend my time at the Teahouse, and an issue that keeps coming up is the AfC backlog (2/3 months?). When I get stressed out in my primary focus area (Nepal-related articles), I would like to look at some drafts and help out, as I particularly enjoy assisting new editors. I also have some experience handling promotional, COI, sockpuppet related cases. I think there is enough data in my article creations history as well as CSD, AfD participation to make an assessment about my intentions to contribute positively, treatment of fellow editors, cautiousness and passing competence. My article creation history, I think, shows the rate of improvement in my understanding of notability guidelines and RSes (worst case when starting out was Nawaraj Subba). I would start out very cautiously. I don't know all the guidelines but I know GNG and I know SNG's exist and certainly can check the relevant SNG for the page I come across, and guidelines on reconciling the two. I can follow instructions well enough, more so when the anticipated impact is substantial. Thanks! Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 08:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 09:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tom (LT)[edit]

Provide feedback on, help out, and respond to articles for creation relating to anatomy and potentially medicine.

I have read the reviewing instructions (WP:AFCR)

I also would have no objection if I was appointed a mentor or had someone look over my few AfC reviews to ensure I am reviewing with a suitable quality / rigor. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CptViraj[edit]

Hii, i'm contributing to Wikipedia since April, and i think now I've required experience to become afc reviewer. Also i want to help reduce the backlog (over 4000 pending submissions). I've been blocked once for copyright violation and one rejected afc reviewer request. Also i've patroller rights in commons. Thank you! -- CptViraj (📧) 14:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about your edits as well as your understanding of several policies. As an example, you created Machayenge very shortly after Emiway Bantai and it's variations had been deleted (repeatedly, and after several socks were involved.) But aside from that rather suspect creation, the sources you used were almost all completely unreliable or do not otherwise indicate notability. The sourcing in your own work as well as your lack of AFD participation do not leave me confident you understand the criteria yet. Also almost all of your speedy deletion noms are g13, so from a standpoint of being able to assess your ability to discern what content is and isn't appropriate, i'm just not seeing it. Also only 11% of your contribs are to mainspace, the bulk are in user talk. Praxidicae (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time i created Machayenge, i was new to Wikipedia and i was not familiar with policies. But now i'm familiarized with CSD/AfC/AFD/PROD/FFD. And i know Machayenge and Lamberghini (song) both articles meets WP:A9. -- CptViraj (📧) 10:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinegarymass911[edit]

I have been on Wiki for some time now and am familiar with the guidelines. I want to work more on AFC, use the reviewer script, and help reduce the 4,411 pending submissions that are waiting to be reviewed. I am a page reviewer and have extended auto confirmed. I have also created about 1300 pages. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AvalerionV[edit]

Long story short, I have been here for more than two years now, with holidays going on for the next two months. I am willing to help since there is nothing better to do. :) AvalerionV 21:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AvalerionV, while you seem to do a ton of editing in the article space (which is good!) you don't appear to have much positive experience in the "administrative" side of Wikipedia (deletion, creation, patrolling, etc). Do you feel that you can appropriately review drafts for their suitability? Primefac (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, I am well aware of the guidelines because this is not my first time applying for the position. My main focus will be to work on AfC backlog and help reduce it. I have a good experience with fighting vandalism because that's what I did most in the past. If you have a doubt, you can place me on probation, I have no problem with it. Thank you for your response. AvalerionV 17:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes, not really sure about this. Similar to the first and second requests, the majority of their edits are gnoming or vandal-fighting. I appreciate the willingness/enthusiasm, but I have no way to gauge if they'll be an effective reviewer. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Primefac, I think let's try the probation on good-faith and request the editor to come back once the probation ends. Thanks, Lourdes 03:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taewangkorea[edit]

I would like to help with the backlog. I have over 500 undeleted edits to mainspace and I have a good understanding of the notability guidelines as I created several articles myself and I participate in AfD discussions. Taewangkorea (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:OceanHok[edit]

I am already a AFC reviewer, but I changed my username from AdrianGamer to OceanHok. Right now every time I edit, Wiki tells me that there is an AFCH error. Can someone change my old username in the list to a new one? OceanHok (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC) OceanHok (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 19:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waddie96[edit]

I'm interested in becoming a AfC reviewer. I have read the reviewing instructions, I understand most notability guidelines, and I understand deletion policy. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 08:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFD stats are at 77%, CSD stats are about 50%. No time to check further. Primefac (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Probation, which will be evaluated in 3-6 months. Being on probation only means that you can be removed from the list for any reason without prior discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sillyfolkboy[edit]

Looking to support the reviewing of athlete biography AFCs SFB 21:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Please fix alphabetical order. -- -- -- 10:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JTtheOG[edit]

Hey there, I've been a new page reviewer for almost three years now, and created about 150 pages, so I have a pretty good understanding of the guidelines and deletion policies and have read the instructions. If there's a backlog, I want to contribute to trimming it down as I've been doing on the NPP backlog. JTtheOG (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for offering your time here. I am inclined to add you. Please first clarify why do you believe many administrators have unreviewed the pages you have marked as patrolled. Warmly, Lourdes 16:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of curious too about the answer given the prominance of the users who've done it. However, I will note that it appears this has happened six times the last last 365 days while he has reviewed a total of 11,899 articles meaning .0005 (or .05%) of all his articles have been unreviewed. Our most prolific reviewer Onel has had 23 out of 35,277 or .0006 (.06%) unreviews. I appear to have 3 out of 4137 or .0007 (.07%) and I can tell you that in two of those cases I definitely shouldn't have been unreviewed (1 was an accident, the other was by a reviewer who didn't know current policy about marking deletions). So while I remain curious I did want to put this in context and point out that the unreviewed rate appears in-line with at least 2 of the other 10 most prolific reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Nearly 12,000 articles? Jesus Christ. Taking Barkeep's stats as correct that certainly seems legitimate. Not my call, but I'd be inclined to support that as an acceptable rate of error (or at least disagreement) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Barkeep, firstly, for the stats and putting the numbers into context. As for the six unreviews, sometimes when I review prodded pages which I think will be deleted, it is, for some reason, unreviewed before being deleted. Other times, the pages is unreviewed and then kept anyway with no tags. Other than situations where there are misunderstandings like that, I can't really say. I will inevitably make mistakes, I guess is the only logical reason. Thank you all for your comments. JTtheOG (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; that doesn't cut ice with me. Not done.[1] Thanks, Lourdes 03:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishal Shrestha[edit]

Looking to help reviewing Nepalese articles. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for applying Bishal. Could you please share how conversant are you with our deletion policy? Thanks, Lourdes 09:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a good knowledge regarding the deletion policy. I regularly check articles violating the policies and tag it accordingly. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Previously requested on 3 July (above). Eagleash (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Eagleash. I thought of mentioning that myself, but as it was on the same page, I thought it wasn't necessary Bishal Shrestha (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that impressed with your AfD work, but quite positive about your speedy work. Take this slow and perhaps read up on the deletion policy and notability guidelines once again before starting off.
 Done Lourdes 08:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hugsyrup[edit]

I contribute regularly at the Teahouse, where a lot of the questions we get relate to AFC submissions, and I believe I provide helpful input there so I would like to help further by getting involved in actually reviewing submissions myself. I am also a fairly frequent contributor to AFD, and I understand that the criteria for reviewing an AFC are not dissimilar to considering an AFD. Many thanks for your consideration. Hugsyrup 11:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 03:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September[edit]

User:Utopes[edit]

Hello, I'm Utopes! A couple months ago, I petitioned myself for the role under the username UtopianPoyzin. After not meeting the criteria necessary at the time, with less than 500 mainspace edits, I was told I could reapply in a month or two after I had edited more often, and participated in more AfD discussions. As time progressed, I have been getting more edits under my belt at a consistent rate, and now have the necessary 500 mainspace edits. Additionally, I have been active in the areas of AfD, as well as RfD, which has allowed me to further my understanding of the deletion policy. Following my first application for AfC, I joined the Recent Changes Patrol and gained Rollbacker and Pending Changes rights, and gained all-around editing experience over these last couple months. All-in-all, I believe I have met the requirements that User:Lourdes provided from my AfC application 2 months ago. I still would like to help tackle the backlog of AfC articles that need reviewing. Thank you for taking the time to look at my case again! Utopes (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide us some evidence that you have a reasonable grasp of our deletion policy and notability guidelines (e.g. CSD/PROD/AfD/Curation experience; or in creating articles that are reliably sourced). Thanks, Lourdes 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now, no reply. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: and @Primefac:, sorry for the extended delay. (Members of my Troop and I were on a hiking trip in Philmont, and I posted this before we left. I did not plan for additional questioning). I have participated in 24 AfD's, and approximately 30 RfD's (there is no RfD tracker, but I know I give my comments there more often, as I find the solutions to be more clear cut for redirects). In these discussions, I have demonstrated knowledge of the fundamentals of the deletion policy for articles and redirects, and properly reference the appropriate guideline that the article does/does not follow wherever necessary (GNG, NOR, etc.). As for outside of AfD discussions, I have authored several properly referenced articles on chemical compounds, with reliable sources where applicable. If there is any other concern, just let me know. I thought I answered everything with my first post, but I'd be happy to answer to any other inquiries. Utopes (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I am watching this page, ping me to let me know if this is seen. I get that my case has been an open and closed book in my absence. Utopes (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This was copied from July, as it wasn't acted on. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 03:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thanks for getting back to me, didn't want to be pushy about a reply. Utopes (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enivid[edit]

I am an editor since 2008 and sometimes when I have free time I would like to be able to help with the AfD backlog. I believe I have good understanding of policies and guidelines (including notability and deletion), and I often try to improve newly created articles. Enivid (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enivid, it is exciting to find a long-term editor wishing to join the AfC team. We normally prefer that any applying editor have a reasonable understanding of Wikipedia's deletion policy and notability guidelines. If I may recommend, would it be okay if you get some experience in deletion areas (e.g. CSD/PROD/AfD) and then perhaps reapply here in a month or two. What do you say? Warmly, Lourdes 13:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:James-the-Charizard[edit]

I recently gained New Page Reviewer rights, I have read over the relevant guidelines to this, and have good experience in the AFD process. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 03:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RogueScholar[edit]

I've enjoyed helping improve articles in Draft namespace and in light of the backlog for article reviews would also like to do what I can to help manage that workload. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar  ₨Talk🗩 ⚟  My recent
mischief  01:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RogueScholar, your signature is huge. Recommended length is no more than 250 characters, and yours is 1000 long! I'll get to your request as soon as possible, but you really need to trim your sig down. Primefac (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ComplexRational[edit]

Hi, I recently got a talk page invite and decided that I would like to help reviewing drafts at AfC in addition to some of the CSD, XfD, and anti-vandalism work I do. I have read the instructions at WP:AFCR and reread the linked guidelines. ComplexRational (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, why are you coming here when you should be probably applying for adminship. Anyway,  Done Lourdes 10:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flycatchr[edit]

Hello, also got a talk page incite and decided to give it a go. I have reviewed WP:AFCR instructions. Flycatchr 10:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for applying Fly. Do you have any experience in areas related to deletion? This is recommended for prospective AfC reviewers. Please advise. Thanks, Lourdes 10:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, no reply. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Mirror Cracked[edit]

I'd like to help out with the AfC review backlog, and believe I meet the criteria, I have decent experience with CSD and Prod, and have participated in several AfD discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 10:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe[edit]

Not too impressed with your block log 🤓... Still, on good faith,  Done Lourdes 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User: Breaking sticks[edit]

I only recently found out that we aren't supposed to review AfC submissions without first being accepted here, and I have occasionally reviewed them. Sorry about that mistake. However, now that it's done, probably the best way for you to judge whether I'm suitable to be accepted is to look at ones I've already done, and see if I got them right. Two that I accepted are Suillus kaibabensis and Mill Creek Nature Park, and two that I declined are Draft:Soulaimane Berrada and Draft:Rachel Paulson. The criteria for acceptance mention an understanding of deletion policy. I think my history of AfD participation will show that I do have that understanding, and also any administrator will be able to see my history of CSD nominations, almost all of which have been accepted, I think.
The number of reviews I have done is small (as far as I remember just the four I listed above plus one that has been deleted) but if I am approved here I would like to take a more active part in AfC reviewing. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline, but I dig your interest. Thanks for applying and welcome to the corps. Don't break the internet falling over others to review AfCs. Enjoy and have fun.
 Done Lourdes 23:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dom497[edit]

I'm a long time Wikipedia editor who was written many articles and re-written articles to meet Good Article and Featured Article statuses. I also spent many years reviewing Good Article Nominations. As I come back from a long hiatus, I want to expand my work on Wikipedia by providing editors with feedback regarding their drafts. Dom497 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lourdes 18:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andy Dingley[edit]

WP:AN is requesting help in reducing the old unreviwed backlog. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done​ Lourdes 07:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CaptainEek[edit]

Howdy hello! I saw Nosebagbear's plea on WP:AN for more AfC reviewers, and thought "guess its finally time I should get involved". I've read the reviewing instructions, have pretty fair experience with AfDs and CSD's, and am looking to help a good cause! I am familiar with a great deal of the many, many notability requirements, and know darn well enough to look up a category when I'm unsure. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – bradv🍁 05:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Base[edit]

I would like to become a AFC reviewer as I was recently denied for NPR rights and Barkeep49 told me that AFC is a good way to gain experience.Andrew Base (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcmatter[edit]

I would like to work on clearing up some of the backlog. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MainlyTwelve[edit]

I'd love to contribute to reducing the backlog. I also help at NPP. — Mainly 19:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, @MainlyTwelve:. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to myself or another reviewer/administrator. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:OxonAlex[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights:
After noticing from the help desk and the Teahouse that there seems to be a backlog at AFC. I would like to help shorten this, in order to ensure that editors with potential don't leave the site after finding that their work has been left in a queue for five months, as well as to explain policies and guidelines in a "friendlier" environment than on live articles.
I have read the reviewing instructions, and have some, admittedly not overwhelming, experience of deletion methods and discussions, with logs of various actions kept at User:OxonAlex/logs. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected some typos ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
 Done Lourdes 03:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:EDG 543[edit]

I would like to help noobies get there articles published since my first article took forever to get published. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who created Double Doink should be given a straight pass here :) But I wanted to request you to share how well are you acquainted with our deletion policies? And if you are not, would you be ready to engage in some of the deletion related areas (CSD/AfD/PROD/even curation) for at least a fortnight before jumping into AfC? To be clear, I'll approve your request once you approve mine. Lourdes 16:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Yeah, I'm not so familiar with deletion. So, I just familiarize myself with CSD/AfD/PROD/curation and request again in two weeks or so? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October[edit]

Users ending probation[edit]

The following users are ending their probation. If there are no issues they will be considered full AFC reviewers.

Random selection of reviews from each editor reviewed, no major issues. Fine by me to continue. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry haven't got the time to check due to RL commitments. Lourdes 06:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Almy[edit]

I submitted an article after someone draftified it for not having a source. I saw that there was 3,817 drafts for review and that it could take 8 weeks, and since I have a good amount of Wikipedia experience I want to help cut down on that large number of drafts that need to be reviewed. I have new page reviewer and rollback permissions and I have an understanding of AfD and have read over the deletion policy and notability guidelines. Almy (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Almy. Thanks for applying. Your article creation experience is a step in the right direction as it would give you command over notability guidelines. Your sourcing skills are still developing and I'll recommend you spend a month more adding reliable sources to our articles. You have insignificant experience in deletion areas, and I would again recommend a month of experience in our deletion areas (see the reco at the top of this page). Lastly, I would encourage you to be positive while engaging with fellow AfC reviewers and to avoid statements like this that may feel snarky and also give an impression that this is a revenge application. I look forward to you re-applying in a month. Please reach out to me for any assistance in the meanwhile. Thanks, Lourdes 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per Lourdes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AbhiMukh97[edit]

I would like trying to reduce the backlogs here, if I am permitted. Thank you AbhiMukh97(Speak)(Contribs) 11:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC) AbhiMukh97(Speak)(Contribs) 11:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cassiopeia, your comments requested please. Thanks, Lourdes 02:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - for now. You are already doing an excellent job tagging totally inappropriate drafts for deletion, but please continue your anti-vandalism work following the user right you were recently accorded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dee03[edit]

Recently came across Draft:2018 Asian Shotgun Championships which is obviously notable and has been lying in draftspace for more than three months. I have sufficient experience with article creation, notability guidelines and deletion processes, and would like to review sports-related AfC drafts from time to time. Dee03 20:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done You could in the future consider running for adminship, with some additional experience in adminning related areas. Thanks for applying. Lourdes 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muhandes[edit]

I've been around for some time, created some pages (up to GA) and had my share of XFDs, so I think I am quite familiar with the policies and the process. These days I usually help with templates and fight vandalism, but seeing the horrendous backlog I thought I'll try to help in this area as well.--Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willsome429[edit]

I have experience with Page Curation on the New Page Patrol and I would also like to help the backlog in this area of Wikipedia. I check my account pretty regularly and am more than willing to engage in discourse as to my decisions to publish/deny a submission. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PCock[edit]

I've been editing since 2006 and would like to start helping out reviewing drafts. Peacock (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nsk92[edit]

I have been a WP editor for 12 years. I fairly regularly participate in AfDs, and do occasional CSD tagging and PRODding. I do NPP from time to time and I am somewhat interested in seeing from the inside how the AfC process works by comparison. And yes, I have read through the WP:AFCR page. Nsk92 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kudpung, please add the missing bracket. Thanks, -- -- -- 11:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed by User:Kudpung. Thanks, -- -- -- 11:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Base[edit]

I requested that my AFC reviewer rights be removed a week ago as many users told me that I wasn't able to use them properly and my rights were removed by Barkeep49, but I would like to request the rights back since I have read the WP:AFCR page and would like to reduce the AFC backlog. Andrew Base (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am of mixed opinion which is why I told Andrew he could come here and have a different sysop make a decision. On the one hand, I'm glad he's now read what he's read. That's a real good start. On the other hand, it's only been a week. If he were doing this after a month it would be a clear decision for me. But right now it's hard for me to tell if he's truly learned something from the mistakes or is just trying to say the right things. I'd like him to take Wikipedia just a beat slower in general. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Please give it at least a month of substantial editing so that we have something to evaluate. In the meantime, keep up the good anti-vandalism work.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meeanaya[edit]

Hello, I would like to have the reviewer rights to help with the backlog of pages to review. I can help in eliminating spam, a lot of times when I create articles it stays unreviewed for several weeks, so I would like to help out in this way for AFC. I have been helping Wikipedia to stay away from Spam and have deleted several spam pages. I have been working at New Pages Patrol without the rights and I have been active at AFD (successfully nominated and deleted over 50 pages), the right will help to clear the backlog. I feel with my experience I will be able to successfully and efficiently review new articles and pages.

I also have over 1400 total edits and 34 articles created, none of them are deleted. I have also learned what is WP:GNG and what are WP:RS and really to help Wikipedia to stay away from Spam. The right will be useful if I could patrol them as well as doing the manual of style tidy up and categorization. Meeanaya (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. For the moment you still need to obtain a better understanding of notability. If you would like to help with maintenance, you could try your hand at reverting vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzu8586[edit]

Hello - I am a member since 2016 and would like to help out with the AfC review backlog. I believe I have meet the criteria, I have experience with CSD and Prod.

 Not done. You do not yet meet the basic requirement. Please complete three consecutive months of solid editing and ask again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeneralPoxter[edit]

I have been through the AfC process numerous times and found it an extremely helpful and rewarding experience for new Wikipedians. I would like to repay the help I received, especially focusing on new articles that share the same subject as the Wikiprojects I am a member of. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimBray[edit]

Hi, I recently submitted an AfC for Sarah Shmarsh and discovered the review backlog, which seems really large. I could volunteer to put in an hour here and an hour there reviewing. I'm not deep into WP culture but I've edited quite a bit over the years. Tim Bray (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Tim Bray (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very little page creation, a declined draft, and almost no demonstration of deletion policy/notability (bullet points 4/5). Inclined to decline but I'll take a deeper look later just to see if there's something I'm missing. Will not be opposed to someone else commenting/reviewing in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - for now, Tim. You have only made 30 mainspace edits in the last 12 months so a need for this right is not demonstrated. Please ask again when you have made 500 mainspace edits in three consecutive months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November[edit]

Users ending probation[edit]

The following users are ending their probation. If there are no issues they will be considered full AFC reviewers.

User:Fin 22[edit]

Hi there! I normally do anti-vandalism, but would love to be a part of AfC and help out reviewing drafts and lift the backlog. I know my way around Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines well, and have spent some time in AfD, and have definitely developed my understanding of the policies. I totally welcome any directed evaluation of my contributions, or a point in the right direction so I can end up helping out here :) ƒin (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. While you meet the minimum editing criteria, 85% of your article-space edits are fighting vandalism (totally fine) which doesn't leave much for demonstrating you know your way around creating or improving articles. If you're interested in helping out here I would suggest doing a little bit more work at AFD, as well as potentially checking out new pages to see if any require speedy deletion. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caker18[edit]

I am active on reverting vandalism through Twinkle, and I have experience in the CSD, RPP and ARV zones. I also have more than 500 edits and therefore exceed the requirements. I am interested in history subjects and I have a wide knowledge of premodern times - thus I can help with fact-checking pages related to these topics. I also have a quick eye and I am on the Copy-editing Guild, the RC Patrol, the Typo Team, amongst others, a full list of which could be found on my user page. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note This AfD gives me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do realize that; I was kind of trying to ask for ideas and suggestions instead of actually deleting it - of course I also put it in AfD because if it does not per consensus meet notability guidelines there is already a forum for deciding that. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - for now. That AfD is extremely clear and AfD is not a deletion school. Not only do reviewers need to have an excellent knowledge of notability criteria, they should also know the exceptions such as WP:GEOLAND, and fully understand WP:DELETION. 500 edits is only the basic threshold. Keep up the good work reverting vandalism and apply here again in a couple of months when you have more experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Interstellarity[edit]

I am currently being trained by CASSIOPEIA to become an AFC reviewer. See my training page. I am almost done with training and feel I'm ready to take on this task. Please ping me when you answer this request. Interstellarity (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Could CASSIOPEIA please weigh in here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung Greetings. @Interstellarity: has finished 6 out of the 9 Assignments in the NPPSCHOOL program and yet to start the "reviewing" assignment and "AfD" assignment has yet to be reviewed. So far Interstellarity is doing well in the program, however, more exercises needed on CSD G11 and G12 to demonstrate interstellarity of understanding how to apply them. I have advised Interstellarity to apply AfC after they have finished the "Final exam" of NPPSCHOOL program and I will create a sub page to discuss AfC as the process and criteria between the NPP and AfC are very different. . My advice is for Interstellarity to grant the AfC after the abovementioned is fulfilled. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - yet. @Interstellarity: Please see the recommendations by CASSIOPEIA and reapply when the course is completed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169[edit]

I’ve good grasp on Wikipedia’s policies. I’m long participant at AfD and I’ve created 24 articles till now in which only two are deleted so far. My CSD log is here and I’ve more than 92% accuracy in contesting CSD. I’ve pending changes reviewer and rollback rights too. My decisions on pending changes have contensted only once. I want to reduce backlog here by my experience as Gujarati and Indian. Harshil want to talk? 01:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harshil169: - when you say 92% accuracy in contesting CSD do you mean the nomination list linked slightly before, or is actual contesting of CSD nominations made by others? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: It consists all of the articles and drafts on which I put CSD template from October.— Harshil want to talk? 11:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, Harshil had made an ask on my talk page to gain this right. I asked him to post here because I believe transparency and requests at appropriate places where those interested can notice is important. Do you have reservations because my examination of the editor suggests someone who is ready to do AfC and if I'd gotten here first I would have just added him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: - no objection at all, I just wanted to check that the meaning was what I suspected was meant. 92% success at contesting CSD nominations would also be equally impressive, but seemed a little odd so wanted to clarify. Welcome to the AfC Crew, Harshil. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harshil169: it's  Done. Best, ​Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hewhoamareismyself[edit]

Former participant in this project returning after a long hiatus. Probably half of my edits (including ~1500 deleted edits) are from AFC helper. hewhoamareismyself 05:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I should probably put more down here, so that y'all have something to go off of, when I last signed up I think this was a totally voluntary process. When I last participated, I was not entirely comfortable with being the person who had the final say as to when notability had been sufficiently proven and only moved a handful of articles into mainspace (it's a lot easier to prove the negative than assert the positive), but I focused mainly on ensuring that new articles achieved a neutral point of view helped fix drafts that hadn't quite achieved that. That's also the sort of thing that you can easily work on without declining the submission outright, which I tried to avoid when articles needed tweaks rather than overhauls. Now, having taken a more active role in WP:AfD, I am developing a better line as to where notability is and I feel more comfortable going for it and improving the new page from mainspace when the page may not be perfect.
I am quite the workhorse and would like to devote time back into this project. hewhoamareismyself 02:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, welcome back. Please make sure you are familiar with the changes that have occurred regarding notability, in particular the changes to WP:CORP which happened I believe whilst you were away. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:HinaBB[edit]

I have been editing and contributing to wikipedia for almost 4 months and now i would love to participate in this project as well. I think i would really feel appreciated to be a part of this project and help in better contribution. HinaBB (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HinaBB did you read the criteria? You have only 382 total edits to mainspace...Praxidicae (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I had and that is why after my 500 edits i submit my request here, But now i can see what you are specifically highlighting. Thankyou so much editor!! ♥ Also, it would be really helpful if you can tell me about any other requirements rather than these mainspace edits. So on my next request i am all prepared. (HinaBB (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done, fails minimum editing criteria. Primefac (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheOneWorkingAccount[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights

Hi! I'd like to apply to be an AfC reviewer since I have been patrolling new pages and want to start doing more, currently I am only able to make minor edits or propose deletion of pages. Please let me know if this is possible so that I can start contributing more. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, fails minimum editing criteria. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now meet the minimum criteria, and would love to be a part of something more. Please review. I have been reading up on the various rules as well, and do thorough research before any proposal for accepting/deleting of a page. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rocky 734[edit]

I have edited many articles, read and spent some time understanding privacy policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, i think i am ready to be a reviewer. I have atleast 700 edits and keep on editing... and reviewing articles... Rocky 734 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, fails minimum editing criteria. Primefac (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiAviator[edit]

I would like to be part of the project to aid the creation of articles and quality control. I am experienced in AfD and quality control of articles and would like to help out in this project and has a passion in the process of creation of articles. WikiAviator (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, per similar rational to your declined request for WP:NPR; your AFD experience and your talk page indicate that you might not fully understand what makes a good article. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris troutman[edit]

I came off this list two years ago at my own request. I'm returning to AfC to help with the backlog. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​ Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sagotreespirit[edit]

I am a highly active New Page Reviewer and Recent Changes patroller with over 10,000 edits and 350 articles created. I have a lot of CSD, PROD, AfD, and draftifying experience as well, and genuinely care about carefully executed curation so that Wikipedia's quality and usability can be maintained. Also, I've diligently read over AfC instructions and notability guidelines, and will continue to do so in order to regularly refresh my knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abryn[edit]

Want to do work to reduce the backlog. Have been a Wikipedian for 15ish years, and have created many articles and dealt with deletion discussions often. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December[edit]

User:Alexbrn[edit]

I'd like to help with the Project by reviewing some AfCs. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:NahalAhmed[edit]

I would like to become a WP:AFC reviewer as I have a good experience WP:CSD/WP:AFD. Mostly Am active on new page related article but at this i wanted to work AFC, Thanks.-Nahal(T) 09:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymie[edit]

To review drafts, primarily related to radio and television stations. Longtime radio/TV topic area editor that has handled AfDs, PRODs and CSDs of broadcasting-related articles in the past. Raymie (t • c) 07:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DougHill[edit]

I have over 5000 edits here, I've created several pages (articles as well as templates), and I'd like to help reduce the backlog. DougHill (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC) DougHill (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Insufficient knowlege of notability / sourcing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TL The Legend[edit]

I have well over 500 edits and have been a member for 2 years. I have a understanding of the policies related to article creation, as well as of WP:PROD and other deletion policies. For these reasons, I believe that I can contribute well to AfC. TL The Legend talk 18:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, fails minimum editing criteria. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willbb234[edit]

Want to help out. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Linguaddict[edit]

Hi, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and would love to help some contributors out by reviewing their articles. Linguaddict (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, fails minimum editing requirements. No participation at AFD either. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allenjambalaya[edit]

Hello. I have been editing a lot of Drafts for a while and it would be a big help if I can use some scripts for ease. That's all I have to use. Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, you've done some very odd things in the draft space, including having two declined drafts. More concerning is that this is not a style or layout error, nor is this, and old declines should not be removed. Your AFD stats are pretty good, but I don't think you quite understand what all goes into the Draft/AFC process. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. I usually just edit style and layouts so if I just know what is done with drafts, which I think is more harder than I what I used to do. Just a question, can I reapply again after a year or two? For the meantime, I'll focus to Wikiproject Education and Philippines. Thanks for considering though. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to reapply when you have some more experience. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Interstellarity[edit]

I have graduated from the NPPSCHOOL program by CASSIOPEIA. I was told to reapply after I completed the course. I feel that I'm ready to become an AFC reviewer because I learned a lot from NPPSCHOOL program. Interstellarity (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sam-2727[edit]

I have a moderate amount of articles (see my user page), and I have participated in a number of AFD discussions. Through these discussion, and the nominations I have put forward, I have gotten the handle of the various notability criteria. I've also read over the reviewing instructions. It might be also be helpful to see the couple of GA reviews I have completed. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sm8900[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights; long-standing editor. have edited or created numerous articles. have read the guidelines. Sm8900 (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I am very concerned about the number of notes on your talk page regarding copyright and your seeming to not understand how vital it is that copyright protocols and procedures be followed. Copyright is the #1 thing that needs checking in a draft, and we've had too many issues with reviewers in the past who do not properly check copyvios before pushing a draft to the article space. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Luis150902 (removal)[edit]

Primefac, Can you remove Luis150902. The user does not exist. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mdaniels5757[edit]

Reason for requesting afc helper script rights: I want to help clear the backlog. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheOneWorkingAccount[edit]

I have read all the requirements and believe I now fulfill them, and have been looking forward to contributing more meaningfully to the platform. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, please fix alphabetical order. -- -- -- 21:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Primefac. Thanks, -- -- -- 20:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants/Old_Requests/2019&oldid=1086857785"