Wikipedia talk:Drafts

I draftified the article Koshala Literature Festival because it was obviously AI-generated, but I didn't realize that the article should not have been draftified since Chayan.bfc (the creator of the article) had previously moved it back to mainspace. (I even listed the fact that it was draftified before as a sign of it being a low-quality AI-written article and still didn't reconsider moving the page). I can't undo the move now because I placed {{db-r2 }} on the redirect left behind in mainspace and am not sure what to do. Should I ask a pagemover to fix this? Or should I just wait for an admin to delete the redirect page in mainspace and allow for the author to fix the article and possibly move it back? Thank you for responding; any help is appreciated. (If there is a better place to ask for help, please let me know.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

@SuperPianoMan9167 A page mover can move it back if you feel that is correct. I will if you ask me on my talk page. A pragmatic approach is to let it ride, on the basis that the error will have a potential encouraging effect on the creating editor to do better. Obviously you know (now?) that AFD is an option insted of returning to draft, whether DRAFTOBJECT applies or not, and you may choose to apply that if oyu wish, as may anyone, when the draft becomes an article. This applies even if it has been accepted at AFC

Thank you for putting your hand up. We all make mistakes, this mistake too. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for the advice. I think the best option here is to just leave it as-is; if the draft is moved back to mainspace without substantial improvements, I could point it out and/or start an AFD discussion (like you said), or just fix the problems if I can. I don't think that a simple draftification screw-up is important enough to justify a round-robin page swap. Besides, as soon as the redirect in mainspace is deleted, the article will be able to be moved there again by non page movers. I think I'll just trout Self-trout and move on. Thanks for responding and offering to help! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

Well, I can stop worrying now, since the draft article was G11'd by Jimfbleak for being AI slop. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

@SuperPianoMan9167 I have accidentally acted against DRAFTOBJECT several times. Be aware, but also be unconcerned. It is an essay, and a useful one. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I have an older draft of an article titled "Katie McGuinness" (a British actress), that is not suitable for publication on Wikipedia. I realised this after feedback from others when I published a newer version in the main pages. After changes (and some more to come), that version is sitting there okay, so I'm presuming it's acceptable/accepted. I don't know how to delete the old draft article, or whether I'm supposed to. Can someone help with this question? Tassh1 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

After a history merge Draft:Katie McGuinness is just a redirect to Katie McGuinness. I think you should leave the draft as it is. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your reply. I'll leave it and see what unfolds. Cheers. Tassh1 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

I wonder whether it would be of value to have a library of maintenance tags for drafts, not necessarily one for every main space article maintenance tag, but for the issues that are likely to be showstoppers when the draft is submitted for publication. One that comes to my mind most often is a {{Draft needs translation }} tag for the common occurrence where an article is created in a language other than English. While formally handled via the process at WP:Pages needing translation into English, other than in cases where these are speedy-deleted for a reason other than the language, these days they're typically draftified. This and other sorts of tags could be useful for two reasons:

• They'd serve as a checklist for the person who created a draft (or an article that got draftified) of issues that others think really need attending to before they submit for publication. This would be instead of leaving some of them feeling helpless because they don't know what to do. It may lead some of them to make the necessary improvements before submitting them, rather than burdening reviewers with drafts submitted in vain.
• Of editors who scan maintenance categories for work to do, some may be interested in doing the same for drafts, which may drive more attention to drafts about article-worthy subjects and lead to more of them being eventually published rather than languishing, ignored. That would make the draft namespace just a little less of a graveyard.

Largoplazo (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Possibly related: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Use of article-space maintenance templates in Draft namespace –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

There is a draft on a steam locomotive, Draft:Lake Superior and Ishpeming 19, that has been submitted but has not been approved yet, if anyone here would like to look it over. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Section #As_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion has Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, ... where "deletion discussion" is piped to AfD. The piping was done by SmokeyJoe per WT:New pages patrol/Archive 5#Clarification and guidance for draftification (which is quite extensive, I didn't go through it fully). If the intent was only for AfD as a venue, "a deletion discussion" can be replaced by "an Articles for Deletion discussion". If not, if a deletion discussion can mean an WP:RfD as well, the piping can be removed. We sometimes do get requests at RfD for restoring (BLARed or otherwise) redirects to articles and draftifying them. Jay 💬 05:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

An article may be draftified by consensus at AfD, obviously, because AfD is a proper venture for a consensus to be developed, established and demonstrated, and it is the proper venture for deciding on whether to keep an article.

RfD is not applicable because an article, a proper article, does not get discussed directly at RfD.

A disputed BLAR should be discussed at AfD. Revert the blanking, and per BRD, discuss, most forcefully at AfD.

An old blanked and redirected article could be boldly recreated, or recreated via draftspace. I don’t see a purpose for RfD in these stories. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

A lot of pre-redirect article content discussions do happen at RfD per WP:NOTBURO, and there is a lot of opposition to un-BLARing old redirects for AfD. Participants do treat certain RfD discussions as de facto AfD discussions, and deletions get decided as well. Unless there is a hard guideline that says article content discussions CANNOT happen at RfD, they will continue to happen. However, the purpose of the current discussion is to resolve the ambiguity of the link and its pipe in the above mentioned line. Today, I looked at an RfD discussion that had suggested draftification. If the line above specifically says "an Articles for Deletion discussion" instead of "a deletion discussion", then we can straightaway rule out any draftification suggestions that come at RfD. Jay 💬 10:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it’s bad to accept RfD discussions as defacto AfD discussions, because they are not properly set up for that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

That RfD was a not discussion on draftifying article content. It included talk of draftifying material from the history behind the redirect. That is different. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply