Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Disney Brain

 __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. Enigmamsg 03:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Disney Brain


The article fails to show any notable sources and there is not enough coverage for this article. I don't think this article is ready for Wikipedia at this time. Thegooduser  Let's Chat   02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per WP:NMFD, noting that the nominator doesn't advance any violation from WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about The Disney Brain online, therefore he is not notable at this time. Thegooduser  Let's Chat   02:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yea, never mind I'm Stupid should have read that section Thegooduser  Let's Chat   02:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nomination as stated is defective, because not being ready for Wikipedia is not a reason to delete a draft. However, this draft is being tendentiously resubmitted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will propose reasons of Wikipedia is not for promotion, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not a social medium. Now can we get past the Wikilawyering of no reason to delete?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is a fugitive from justice. It was moved from draft space to article space, which subjects it to all of the criteria for speedy deletion of articles.  It was then tagged for A7, and then moved back to draft space by its author.  See gaming the system.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It actually started in mainspace, at Kyle Lai-Fatt, where it was deleted twice. (By me.) —Cryptic 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just because the nominator didn't give a good nomination doesn't mean we can't delete when there are good reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, because if anyone has any other reliable sources for The Disney Brain, please add it in his draft and it will be expanded more when it gets ready. Maude~Duggel (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete is this person even allowed to use a copyrighted name as his proformance name? It's been decline d a bunch of times and moved to mainspace anyway so the creator should expect maknspace rules to apply. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been declined, but still says edit improve resubmit. Fix that first.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason why his article didn't get improved is because of the lack of Norwegian websites that unbeknownst mentioned his name, and he's also mentioned in forums only. If he can pass WP:GNG, he may have a future, but luckily, still finding some sources. Maude~Duggel (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have objected to a large number of deletions because of the wording of the decline template, yet have made no apparent efforts to resolve it. As such, it appears that you are not genuinely interested in fixing the template, which in turn implies that you do not actually consider it to be a problem. Instead, it looks like this is serving as a convenient excuse for you to object to the deletion of drafts you would rather keep. If you do have a specific proposal or even a general idea of what you would like to see instead, please propose it on the template's talk page. You can even link to the discussion here or at WT:MFD so we can comment all on it. WikiProject User warnings may be able to field people with some expertise in this type of thing. Otherwise, please stop raising an issue that is outside the scope of MfD at these discussions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should make more effort to know what you are talking about before commenting on my lack of efforts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I fail to see a conversation on the template's talk page, and there are Lord knows how many pages within the AfC project space. Mind directing me in the proper direction? Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Try WT:AfC. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation seems pertinent. There is broad agreement to change the templates, but it doesn’t seem to be happening and is beyond my skills.  Regardless though, I am not responsible for AfC, I have never thought it a good idea, it continues to do more harm than good, and it’s failures are not a justification for abusing the deletion process.  Deleting pages that show that AfC is failing hides the evidence and is a backwards step.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what passes for "improvement" between submissions. Far too much good-faith volunteer time has been wasted here already.  Delete. —Cryptic 02:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cryptic, yes, it is pretty sad, but the problem with regard to wasting time is that there is a never-ending flow of this stuff. AfC needs to nip it in the bud, not encourage endless resubmittions until someone cries "tendentious".  Every time it is a different person doing the same thing, which clearly speaks to a systemic problem not solved by these MfDs.  In fact, these MfDs hide the evidence of the systemic problem.  The solution is a proper "reject" response that does not include the advice to resubmit, and a massive reduction in the template verbiage that obviously these people are not reading.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - the editor has resubmitted the article with only a very minimal change. In spite of trying to help the editor understand the basic principles of Wikipedia, the editor continues to try to get ineligible articles into Wikipedia.  I have to question the ability of the editor to be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner.  I agree we have contributed too many hours to a cause that appears to lack an adequate outcome for the  article's originating editor.   red dogsix (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

After being brought to ANi this editor has been blocked for repeatedly creating junk and other disruption. I've declined the page yet again. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - If any good-faith neutral editor wants to work on this, they are welcome to speak for it during the remainder of the seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 27 May 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.