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

== Duplicate drafts and backstory ==

Can I have some advice on how to handle the following. Yesterday I declined a draft due mainly to lack of a key source area (recognition) but there was also an unseemly set of undeclared paid editing going on with multiple UPE editors blocked, including the submitter. Previously a third version was deleted, due to a sock (presumably UPE). [[Draft:Thomas M. Schmidt]]<br/>
Today there is a new draft, different name layout, very similar content, this time the relevant area has reasonable sourcing [[Draft:Thomas Mitchell Schmidt]]<br/>
It is declared as an autobiography. It seems presumed notability would apply due to fellowships,  and h index, and I can't see it failing AFD. Should the early draft be used / amended, in order to maintain the longer history, or should that early draft now be deleted? The new article also needs some quick copy edits on layout and promotional tone, 2 minute task which I am willing to do. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 15:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:What you do is call your friendly neighbourhood checkuser, who will block. Cheers. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you @[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]. I'll try to remember the form next time. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 16:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:To answer the question with the assumption that the users are ''not'' socking, if a new draft pops up that is on the same topic as an existing draft, then doing as you did at the second draft and declining as <code>dup</code> is perfectly acceptable. If the new draft is substantially ''better'' than the old draft, though, I would probably review the better draft and point the old draft to the new draft. Of course, the third option is that it's a copy/paste pagemove which requires a histmerge to sort out, but while there are definitely a lot of similarities it looks more like "I used this as a jumping off point" over "I copied it directly".
:As a minor note, declining that first draft as <code>ilc</code> is problematic mainly because the draft has almost everything sourced; having an awards section be unsourced is a simple fix of "remove it" if that is the ''only'' thing holding up acceptance. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:: Many thanks for that @[[User:Primefac|Primefac]]. The ilc was a means to an end, given the newly blocked sock, otherwise I'd have done as you suggested or searched for the fellowship myself. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 18:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Ah, fair enough. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)