Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Milan Diekman

 __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) 17:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Milan Diekman


Declined 6 times fails WP:ACTOR and is an non-notable minor Legacypac (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:KJP1 very wisely removed the submit button a month ago. That was sufficient.  Leave it alone for a quiet G13.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Is this yet another autobiography? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries suggest otherwise (third person) but the account is a single purpose account [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac] (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout nominator for nominating this with no valid reason. Does not appear notable from the current content, but that can always change. In any case that is not a reason to delete a draft. Currently there is no rule, guideline or even essay suggesting a limit on the number of tiems a draft may be submiotted to AfC, and the templated messages specifically invite resubmisison after each decline. Each decline has been followed by changes that are obviously good-faith attempts to improve the draft. The creator, does not seem to have fully understood what would be required to get this accepted, and the possibility that as per WP:OVERCOME it may never be possible to create a valid Wikipedia article about Diekman. This should be more clearly explained to him. But none of that is a reason to delete the draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * DES appears unaware of the recent RFC approved changes to WP:NMFD. They should retract their criticism of this nomination. This page is one of the most declined pages within AfC as seen here User:JJMC89_bot/report/AfC_decline_counts I started with the pages with the highest declines that were pending resubmission and am working my way down the list. 6 submissions without addressing the core problem which has been explained shows the user can't WP:OVERCOME or maybe refuses to review our standards - but most likely their pet topic is not notable. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reiterate4 my criticism of this nomination which clearly violates WP:BITE. I have thoroughly read the revised WP:NMFD. I note that the editor was never warned that repeated submission was grounds for deletion. I can't imagine a practice more likely to drive away new editors than to invite them to submit drafts, ask them to fix and resubmit every time a draft is declined, and then delete the draft on the grounds that the user has done as we asked too many times. I now expect to advise new users never to submit to AfC. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Giving new editors a warning that they only have so many chances to get their article online would also be a clear violation of WP:BITE. The process is designed to be subjective — AFC reviewers must make a determination that the article has no chance of ever being accepted. The author of the article is welcome to participate in that discussion. That's what this conversation is. (That said, I agree with you that MFD should not be automatic based on number of declines.) Brad  v  23:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no fixed number, it was left subjective like most wikipedia policies. Did you catch this page is about a non-notable minor? That is a very good reason to delete on it's own. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did catch that, and I already voted delete. I'm just saying taking things to MfD shouldn't be automatic, and we should not be implementing some sort of de facto standard for the number of declines. When it gets disruptive and a waste of community time, that's when it goes to MfD. Brad  v  23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Repeatedly declined without any substantial improvement. Still no sources to indicate that this meets WP:NACTOR and therefore is unlikely to ever make it to mainspace. Textbook case of WP:NMFD. Brad  v  21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A textbook case would include a diff pointing to non-improvement between resubmissions. The nominator didn’t even allege a lack of improvement. “Textbook” means done properly and clearly.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The page history is publically visable but here was the last submission (no change) and the previous one  (small change done wrong) Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Meets the test, sure. Did you notice KJP1’s solution and how it stopped the resubmissions?  Did you think this discussion would be more important to have than run the risk that KJP1’s solution is just a hiatus?  -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First time I've seen the submit button edited out. Not an easy thing to do. The fact the subject is a minor added to my decision to MfD. Once we clear out the backlog of repeatedly declined pages these noms will be less frequent. There are a few more that are pretty close to G13 so I did not bring them here. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I find many things about AfC confusing, and the editing out of that button looks way beyond my ability to have discovered. And I’m not sure it is a good thing to remove it without replacement without a link to the tea house. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Textbook" in that it meets the criteria for being deleted. That said, the nomination didn't need to happen. The article hadn't been edited in a month, so G13 would have taken care of this without taking any more of the community's time. Brad  v  00:08, 17 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.