Editing Eurovision Wiki talk:WikiProject Articles for creation (section)

== How to handle declined drafts that have been unilaterally moved into mainspace? ==

I'm not sure how this should be handled (if at all). This page was unilaterally [[Special:Diff/1331445120|moved into mainspace]] after [[Special:Diff/1331134532|being declined]] for not meeting NBIO:
*{{pagelinks|Nobuhisa Ishizuka}}
The same editor has since then also created a two other biographies, directly in mainspace, that might not meet NBIO either:
*{{pagelinks|William A. Donius}}
*{{pagelinks|Diane Joseph-McCarthy}}
**Moved: {{pagelinks|Draft:Diane Joseph-McCarthy}}
:Mostly cites papers that the subject has authored herself. 
Could (or should) these be draftified? I also have a sneaking suspicion that these could maybe be [[WP:NEWLLM]], but I don't have any concrete proof of that and I don't want to make that "accusation". <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 13:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

:If they have a COI, they shouldn't be moving these drafts to mainspace, and that should be reversed. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::AFC is not mandatory, so there is no prohibition on the creator moving the page, but if it's not ready for article space then it can be moved ([[WP:DRAFTOBJECT|once]]) back to the draft space for further work. Otherwise, to [[WP:AFD]] it goes. As a minor point, having a COI does not mean it ''must'' be moved back to the draft space. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Exactly, that's why I didn't just go an ''unilaterally move it back'' myself. But it always feels weird to me when editors take it upon themselves to move their own drafts into mainspace after they were ''declined at AfC for valid reasons''. 
:::As far as I can tell, the haven't declared a COI. I meant that the <s>[[:Diane Joseph-McCarthy]] article</s> [[:Draft:Diane Joseph-McCarthy]] draft cites a lot of papers that ''Joseph-McCarthy has written'', not papers that the editor has written. Sorry if I was unclear on that, I wasn't implying that the editor was citing themself. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 13:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:There are some source-to-text issues as well For example {{tqq|Radcliffe Bunting Institute Fellow, 1994-1995}} is listed under <s>{{slink|Diane Joseph-McCarthy#Awards and honours|nopage=n}}</s> {{slink|Draft:Diane Joseph-McCarthy#Awards and honours|nopage=n}} and sourced to [https://www.bu.edu/eng/2023/03/28/three-more-aimbe-fellows-from-eng/ a post on the Boston University College of Engineering website], which does not support this. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 13:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::If it's an LLM that is hallucinating refs, then absolutely yes it should be moved back to draft space, nominated for [[WP:G15]] deletion, or at the very least pruned to remove the offending content. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]])
:::The problem is that I can't conclusively reason that this was hallucinated by an LLM, it could justifiably be said to be a human mistake. In my experience, G15 is very difficult unless the page has strings that can only reasonably have been generated by an LLM, for example [[WP:OAICITE]] or the byte-sequences described in the {{slink|WP:AISIGNS|turn0search0}}. Just some smallish bits of information that is probably hallucinated by an LLM doesn't cut it, unless there are also wildly unrelated or outright fabricated references. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 13:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{tqb|Joseph‑McCarthy earned her Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry with a minor in Computer Science from Boston University. She completed her Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), working with Gregory A. Petsko and Martin Karplus}}
::This is cited to [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349598777689 a paper that she wrote in 1998]. While the paper cites Gregory Petsko and Martin Karplus (and has a closing note thanking Karplus), it does not mention MIT or detail her educational history. This seems like the typical kind of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] to me. Would I be fine to draftity this page? <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 13:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I have asked the editor about the source-to-text issues: <s>{{slink|Talk:Diane Joseph-McCarthy#Text-to-source issues}}</s> {{slink|Draft talk:Diane Joseph-McCarthy#Text-to-source issues}}. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 14:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:Unilaterally moving a draft into article space after it has been declined is common.  What we, the AFC reviewers, must remember is that an article can only be unilaterally draftified once, because [[WP:MOVEWAR|move-warring]] is not permitted.  If a draft that has not previously been in article space is moved to article space after being declined, it may be moved back to draft space, or tagged for [[WP:AFD|AFD]].  The reviewer should use their judgment as to which action to take.  If a draft is moved into article space a second time after being draftified, then it should be sent to [[WP:AFD|AFD]] if it does not belong in article space.  I am aware that some reviewers would prefer to avoid [[WP:AFD|AFD]] because it consumes volunteer time, but in such cases the editor who is causing the timesink is the author, in moving the page into article space against the judgment of the reviewers, and not the reviewer who writes the [[WP:AFD|AFD]] rationale.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::{{u|Robert McClenon}}: what if an (machine-generated) article was created in article space, then draftified and then promptly moved back to article space? The specific page that I am thinking about has at least two direct quotes that are not supported by the sources they're referenced to, and a handful of references with URL parameters showing that Copilot was used. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 11:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Gurkubondinn|Gurkubondinn]], you can tag something that obvious for [[WP:G15]]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you, {{u|asilvering}}. Done: [[Special:Diff/1339813522/1339840850|Diff/1339813522/1339840850]]. It's not the most egrigous quotes to be falsely attributed, but still. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Gurkubondinn|G<small>urkubondinn</small>]] ([[User talk:Gurkubondinn|talk]])</span> 16:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:In addition to what others have said, you as an AFC reviewer don't have to take any action here, because once it's in mainspace it's NPP's problem. You ''can'' take action if you want, but if you're the one who has previously declined the draft, in my opinion it's best to leave it for someone else to handle, so you get a second opinion. You don't need to worry about it being missed, because every article ''must'' be patrolled by NPP. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::Even if a draft gets accepted, it still gets in the hands for NPPs to do unless the AFC reviewer also has the NPP/Autopatrolled right. [[User:JuniperChill|JuniperChill]] ([[User talk:JuniperChill|talk]]) 22:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I have those rights, but I choose to mark my <u>borderline</u> decisions as unpatrolled because I feel the need to further eyes. NPP has a tighter brief than AFC.
:::As an AFC reviewer I have some clear options:
:::*If [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]] does not apply, I may choose to return to draft
:::*When [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]] applies I may:
::::*Edit the article if I feel able to improve it sufficiently to make it acceptable
::::*Send it to AfD, remembering to state that it is a disputed draftification if it is
:::*Leave it alone and move on, whether it is acceptable for mainspace or not
:::*There is always the option simply to flag the deficiencies for improvement, though not worthwhile if choosing the AfD route
:::*Send it to AfD anyway
:::What I do depends on many things, not least of which is my then level of enthusiasm to take action. If I act then others will likely involve themselves and decisions will be made, some of which I will agree with. If I do not then someone else will, at some point, if they feel the need. 🇵🇸&zwj;🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦&zwj;🇵🇸 11:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::[[User:Timtrent]] refers to his {{tq|level of enthusiasm to take action}}.  Perhaps a reverse (mirror image) to that is one's level of disgust at the article.  Their list gives a reviewer six different choices, depending on various things.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)