Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Loget

 __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: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Loget


Categorized as junk by our math project. See link in draft Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC) This is more a procedural thing as a reviewer somewhat reset the G13 clock. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reject the draft, ensure no encouragement remains to edit, improve and resubmit, and leave it for G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reviewer should have made that comment on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just vote delete and making every MfD about critiquing a project you don't participate in please. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it is important to the health of the project that unnecessary deletions don't get rubberstamped, let alone wrong deletions of others' work processed without review. There is one particular WikiProject generating work and process for others, so they need the critiquing.  A simple question: User:Robert McClenon, why did you add a passing comment to the draft page proper, thus resetting the G13 clock, and not add the comment to the draft talk page where it would not reset the clock?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I may not have been thinking of the effect on G13, because I was working through the Math Project list. I also was noting that the concept may be useful in microbiology.  (Whether it actually is useful is another question.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The concept may well be useful. Arguably more useful than LogFC.  It is published in a real journal.  A curious journal that publishes single observations, including apparently thin new opinions.  The MATH project single reviewer called it junk, and I think that single reviewer was harsh, which is not to say incorrect.  There is absolutely no sign of the publication being cited or noticed.  I expect the draft author is author of the reference. I guess that the draft is written to promote the author’s neologism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dump dump dump. It is very much the Wikipedia way to dump on the volunteers in a project in which one does not participate, even though it isn't useful or attractive behavior.  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You’ve become overly precious recently. Why do you think the comment, a moderately useful comment I agree, belongs on the draft and not the draft’s talk page?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - I will concede that the draft talk page would, in retrospect, have been better. However, the AFC tool will put a comment on the draft page, and not on the draft talk page, and I was taking the quick easy approach.  I realize that you aren't familiar with AFC tools and so don't understand.  I will concede that the tools have their limitations.  Please try to consider that maybe the reviewers are trying to do a good job.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. No need for concessions, just a little question, now I understand.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral - What harm is done by this? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVERTISING. I call it obviously written by its inventor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete now that we are here, it is worthless harmless junk by a driveby editor, possibly arguably promoting their vacuous unoriginal concept invention newly invented term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2018 (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.