Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Yvan Lucas

 __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. RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Yvan Lucas


Draft which has been four times in the past few months for not being properly sourced, but whose creator doesn't appear to be listening. Since the first time it was rejected on the grounds of inadequate referencing, no new sources have actually been added at all -- the creator has merely moved some existing references around so that they're in a different order, but has not actually added any substantive new sources that are bolstering the subject's notability at all. There's no point in having to keep dealing with this over and over again if they're just going to keep resubmitting it without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for disruption and time wasting. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is better to use the reject option before bringing it to MfD. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation. The decline comments all lack clarity for the author. Pity the comments aren’t on a talk page where the author can engage in discussion.  Note Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have come across drafts which were very clearly "rejected" rather than "declined", because they featured a very different template at the top which I have been entirely incapable of either producing through any option available to me, or finding any documentation to explain what I'm doing wrong. I'm at a loss on this one. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I count six rather than four declines. This is an autobiography, with the recent edits made by an IP who is probably the author/subject.  We don't need it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:SmokeyJoe - Dump dump dump. Please stop complaining at MFD about the use of decline rather than reject when the reject feature isn't universally availab.e  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, your "Dump dump dump" dumping on me is becoming very tedious. Pages like this should not be coming to MfD.  MfD is an important forum that should not be allowed to be taken over to patch over ill-consider processes in the AfC WikiProject.  Here is as good as any to inform Bearcat on how to better process bad drafts.  The reject feature, contrary to what you say, is universally available.  Any user can install it.  Go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation for instructions.
 * Not processing drafts properly is as Legacypac says, " disruption and time wasting". AfC reviewers not reviewing properly are disrupting and time wasting at MfD.  MfD is not part of AfC.
 * Not processing drafts properly definitely includes applying the soft decline with saccharine encouragement to edit improve and resubmit with the big blue submit button. Editors are responsible for the tool they use.
 * It's not just Bearcat. All of User:CASSIOPEIA, User:Snowycats, User:Legacypac also applied the soft decline response that encourages the process to just go over and over again.
 * The nominator even said "rejected" in his opening sentence, incorrectly. It is therefore highly appropriate to point out that the draft was in fact NEVER rejected, but "declined", and to provide that link that leads to instructions on how to update your scripts so that the reviews can see REJECT distinct from DECLINE as an option.
 * Either these reviewers don't know about installing the updated script, in which case they should go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation, or they intentionally declined, which implies that the draft should stay for the possibility of improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't make the new script work either. Anyway a "Reject" is not required to MfD. The submitter has been told they need better sources and they either don't exist or they have failed to add them. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac, I see you have imported the script, but idid you disable the default gadget (go to Special:Preferences and Disable/uncheck "Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions, Files for Upload, redirect and category requests")? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and then I have no AfCH script at all. Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you ask at that thread, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation, where surely someone will be able to help? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you, unlike me, do not have square brackets around "User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to be very clear that an optional feature which is not automatically installed with the AFC helper script and instead has to be installed separately, but is neither well-advertised as available nor well-documented as to how to actually install it, is not a thing I had any responsibility to psychically know about. So thanks for the helpful link, but I have no responsibility to tolerate being condescended to — the next time you feel the urge to speak to or about me in that tone, find a gopher hole to stuff your attitude in and leave it there. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, sorry, the mud wasn't intended for you, but Robert McClenon is intentionally trying to piss me off. As for your reply  02:07, 25 November 2018 above, I'm afraid I don't understand what you said.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, but in the parts of that post that were directed at me you definitely adopted a tone that approached "reeducate the stupid out of Bearcat" as well. And in the comment you didn't understand, what I was trying to say is that I have seen drafts that had been rejected rather than declined, as they featured a very different template at the top than anything I'd ever seen before — but I put in a very sincere effort to figure out what that template was and how to use it, but was unable to find any documentation of it despite my best efforts. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:SmokeyJoe] - Your scolding of other reviewers about failure to Reject drafts that are crud is becoming tedious also. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I content that it is entirely proper for pages like this that are being tendentiously resubmitted to be coming to AFD. This autobiography is crud, and it is entirely appropriate to take cruddy autobiographies here to MFD.
 * I am not intentionally trying to piss off User:SmokeyJoe. I am just not avoiding pissing him off, because he is not a newbie and the rule against biting newbies does not apply, and he is a good experienced editor who is pissing me off.  However, I am now willing to recognize that scolding other good experienced editors is his genuinely terrible idea for the quarter, and a good editor is entitled to occasional genuinely terrible ideas.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This conversation is getting off-topic. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete repeatedly resubmitted mess. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:58, 26 November 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.