Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kappa Sigma Psi

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kappa Sigma Psi[edit]

Completely non-notable. Some changes are made between resubmission (4 times), but nothing can fix notability, and no sources can be added because none exist. Galobtter (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably does, but WP:NMFD. MfD can't handle every draft of dubious notability.
~~Keep~~. Testing for notability means someone has to check out all sources that exist, not just sources used. There are no apparent WP:NOT issues. Wait for G13 to apply, this is the normal course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I've nominated it for deletion is that its been resubmitted by the same author multiple times over the course of a year, and who apparently has no understanding of independance and RS, despite it being explained to them. I don't think it's ever going to get G13, as the author occasionally edits it or resubmits it, or going to pass notability - I have checked for sources and none exists, it's utterly non-notable and has about 20 people as far as I can see. Galobtter (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it's tendentious resubmission I'm nominating for really. I don't nominate every non-notable item, only ones that get resubmitted without much improvements. Galobtter (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw just the other day a comment saying that AfC reviewers are too reluctant to move content into mainspace and too reluctant to nominate 'no-chance' articles for deletion, leading to the large backlog. Well, here we are, and its comments like SmokeyJoe's which explain why the last part of the comment is accurate. G13 resets whenever someone resubmits and we are doing a disservice to both fellow reviewers and the submitter by wasting both their time and our time with these tendentious resubmits. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the “tendentious resubmission” part. I agree, something needs to be done with these. Deletion is maybe a bit clumsy, but maybe the only realistic response. I’ve suggested a two-reviewer quick deletion process, but it depends on AfC reviewers being NPR-qualified. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed we should be deleting hopeless pages that can’t be fixed ie can’t fix lack of notability. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish AfC had a better process than MfD for quickly and firmly rejecting hopeless submissions. The response should include a link to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. MfD itself wastes far too much time. Galobtter (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.