Wikipedia talk:Drafts

Submitted draft unnoticed

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)

Does deletion discussion equal to AfD?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

90 days for LLM-generated articles

Hi @SmokeyJoe, is there any wiggle room here? The "90 days" criterion appears to have been designed for issues around notability (i.e. inclusionist/deletionist battleground) where articles older than 90 days have implicit consensus and it's unlikely for point 3 of WP:DRAFTREASON to apply. For LLM-generated articles this isn't applicable because the age of an article makes no difference, other than older articles are more likely to have significant non-LLM edits (which I addressed in the note: This isn't applicable to LLM-generated articles that lack significant contributions from other editors.)

To make all LLM-generated articles older than 90 days go through AfD seems incessantly bureaucratic, since it'd mean 50+ more noms a week where every single !vote is just "Delete, it is AI", and when I draftify I'm not even wanting the article deleted since I'm doing it for the LLM-using editor (who's sometimes mainspace blocked) to work on it and put it through AfC (with deletion after 6 months like a failsafe, WP:LLMPROD would be too bitey).

Draftification has been used for AI cleanup for years regardless of an article's age, incl. at ANI, it has very strong implicit consensus. I'd really rather we not need an RfC for this, I'm so feckin busy (there's 114 threads at WP:AINB, another 100+ at WP:AINB#Backlog bonanza, and another 100 cases in Category:AI noticeboard open cleanup cases whose reports were archived). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kowal2701,

Room for wiggles? In general, yes absolutely. However, some editors like objective, and an RfC decided “old” means 90 days.

It was not designed around notability, but around the premise that if something is old, then either it is not for unilateral draftification, or its long life as a serious problem means it is worthy of the attention an AfD Will give. If there are several similar cases, there may be a trend that deserves attention. Unilateral draftification of old pages, no matter what the problem, risks hiding the problem.

If you can make ten very similar AfDs, then do so, create the precedent, and then suggest the more efficient solution. The more efficient solution may be speedy deletion, or PROD with an essay explanation for LLM.

I agree, we don’t want silly RfCs. Start with ten AfDs, and let’s see if you’re right. I suspect that the solution will be deletion, not draftification.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Draftification is easily misused and is hard to review. Years of misuse doesn’t make it right. “Implicit consensus” begs documenting as explicit consensus. New consensus is best demonstrated with evidence. Ten AfDs, I suggest is reasonable evidence to establish a case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit queasy of doing a batch AfD since being brought to AINB is a pretty terrible experience (see VPI thread), and draftifying means it's over quicker and the editor has something positive to do, rather than wait 7 or so more days for a judgement on their creations Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m sorry, but draftifying because it’s quicker, easier, because it is less visible, that’s back door deletion, it is not ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll make an RfC later Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701, WP:PROD is designed to be a non-bureaucratic path for expected non-controversial deletions. Please don't draftify things you think should be deleted.

Abandoned drafts

Is there a reminder bot for drafts being worked on? I thought someone mentioned that to me once. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

FireflyBot task 11 ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 11 ) was the original bot. I want to say another bot took this over for awhile, but I forget which one. Someone might remember at WP:BOTN or WT:AFC if you want to cross-post there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you thinking of User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon? ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/2026 backlog discussion/RFC workshop § Draftification

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/2026 backlog discussion/RFC workshop § Draftification. Note that this is a workshop, so no !voting should take place, just workshopping RFC questions and options. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)