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 . Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sam Chui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repeated re-submission without any improvement.Non-notable and by a mile or so. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails to meet any of our notability criteria, repeatedly resubmitted anyway wasting the AfC team's time, it's time for this to go to the bit bucket. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concur, fails WP: ANYBIO and is highly unlikely to ever be notable. Dan arndt (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject is semi-famous for being semi-famous, and not very much at that. This is being tendentiously resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting active drafts is poor quality moderating of this site. AFC reviewers must do better in imparting the notability criteria to the drafter instead of lazily snatching work out of their hands. WP:BITE applies here. The current mood that active drafts can be deleted without warning at any time is extremely BITEY. Have you warned the creator that the draft could be deleted? Egaoblai (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be as Utopian and non-bitey, as you might but at-least, you need to get your data straight.The draft was slapped with a NSFW and the last re-submission came post-it.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The comments of User:Egaoblai illustrate why I don't like the guideline do not bite and how some experienced editors tie us all in knots with an obsession over avoiding being bitey. The answer to the question is that the creator was warned that the draft was ((NSFW)), Not Suitable for Wikipedia, and they resubmitted anyway. Egaoblai refers to poor quality moderating of this site. What does that mean? Who are the moderators? Dump dump dump. I know that it is very easy and very popular and the Wikipedia way to dump on any set of reviewers, but it still isn't useful. Anyway, what would the author have done differently if the notability criteria had been "better imparted"? Write about a notable person? Make a non-notable person notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If people are resubmitting and there is no evidence that AFC reviewers are doing much to help them or dissaude them from constant resubmitting then yes, there is a problem there. Without fighting against BITE, the Wiki will literally die after this generation, so I don't think it's a policy that is irrelevant at all, IN fact it should be front and center.Egaoblai (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to stop the disruptive resubmissions with no attempt at improvement. VQuakr (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reviewers were extremely clear with NSFW and they still persist. Bye bye Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2018 (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.