Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ian Gardiner (artist)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  moved to mainspace. 103.6.159.80 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Gardiner (artist)


There are already 6 reviews and all declined, MFD per User:LaMona. 333-blue 10:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. A google search immediately brings up hits.  He even has a book about him.  It looks like a real old-fashioned type book.  Clearly, the AfC process is not good at helping attempting contributors.  After five minutes, I am inclided to move to mainspace.  My advice to people like  is to never use AfC or Draftspace again.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Move to mainspace if you'd like. The editor can go to the TeaHouse for help, and that information is on their talk page. The issue here is that person has brought a draft back to AfC repeatedly without making changes, and we have no way to break this cycle. There doesn't seem to be a way, other than by suggestion, to send someone from AfC to TeaHouse for the help they need. If you can do the edits that are required here, do them. But AfC is backlogged and we can't have articles coming back repeatedly when nothing has changed. So don't dump on AfC - we have a job, we do it, but we don't have a way to get help on an article that needs it other than by pointing the user to the TeaHouse. If they choose not to use that option, there's nothing we can do. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the AfC process is flawed, it is not the fault of reviewers. However, one thing you could do is lower your standards a little. COI is a poor reason to block an article. AfC should not be trying to AfD-proof drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the first line of the AfC reviewer instruction: "The core purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted." Now, you may disagree with that, and can lobby to get it changed, but that is indeed what AfC is about. Not only do we not block articles for COI, folks with COI are directed to AfC as a place to create articles. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest we discus the general case at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and Comment A useful summary LaMona. As has been noted this article is OK for mainspace and it has not been moved because the author won't go to the teahouse..... and it gave me an insight into the problem. I guess you can put up with it, wait for lots of new experienced editors to arrive, wait for less articles etc. Have you considered showing users how to move them to mainspace? (We create 1000 articles a day anyway) You would lose the history, but that's not a biggie. Just a suggestion and it mirrors what SmokeyJoe says Victuallers (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See my answer above re: AfC reviewer instructions. LaMona (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - The issue is not notability as such, but whether this draft will ever establish notability. Moving to mainspace as is would likely result in AFD.  If one of the editors is willing to adopt this article and improve it within seven days, that would be good, but the AFC reviewers spend too much time on drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging whether a topic is notable or can ever establish notability (actually the same thing, WP:N is not restricted to listed references) is a very tough call, and is a question for AfD. If the draft writer wants to reject AfC reviewer advice, he should be allowed. I agree that he shouldn't re-submit the same draft. I suggest discussing the general case at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts. In this particular case, the draft looks too good to have MfD delete it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Rodney B James (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Hello Smokey Joe. Thank you for your advice in your last message. I think a basic problem is that I have been making a lot of edits and changes in response to the various feedback I have been getting, including adding quite a few additional published or verifiable references. Problem is I mustn't have ticked a box that indicates edits have been made each time I have been asked. If any of the reviewers could check the latest draft against the first one they would see that this essay has been changed quite dramatically. Sorry to have taken up everybody's time on this, I can see that you are all quite busy. I'm about to give up on more corrections which is a shame - not sure what else I can do to make it comply with Wikipedia style and toneRodney B James (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rodney, yes hello. You sound like you could become a valuable Wikipedian. It is easy to make newcomer mistakes. If I had my way, you would not be allowed to write a new article until you had made 100 non trivial contributions to other articles. Like a required apprenticeship, or postgraduate entry exercise. You would then be allowed to write an article directly into mainspace. As it is, you may do so now, but you may be bamboozled by Wikipedia terms of art when someone tries to get it deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is moot. I have accepted the article, and started improving it, and am prepared to defend it at AfD. In my opinion, it obviously meets the guideline for WP:CREATIVE. On the basis of our decisions on similar articles, I think there is essentially no likelihood that afd will delete it. The real problem, is that it should not have been declined. I congratulate the editor for having persisted.   DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.