Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Surviving was not my choice: Difference between revisions

Draft:Surviving was not my choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Wikipedia is not a host for your creative writing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The argument can be made that this shouldn’t have been nominated since draft space is self-clearing, but since we’re here we might as well delete it. This page is an example of what Wikipedia is not, which applies to all namespaces. Unlike a draft article whose subject may or may not be notable, this isn’t trying to be an article, but is instead misusing Wikipia as a webhost for creative writing. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Which line of WP:NOT applies? If one does, User:LaundryPizza03 should quote it. In the meantime, there is no valid reason for deletion. Draftspace exists to keep the junk contained, and bringing junk to MfD is contrary to that purpose. Unless there is a valid reason to actively delete it.

  Bad nominations should be rejected to discourage them.

  ”Misusing as a webhost”? Could be, but that is a vaguewave. How? Is there evidence such as unusual pageviews? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  […] or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. implies that it includes everything that is out of project scope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – Why was User:LaunndryPizza03 reviewing a page that had been created in draft space within the past 12 hours? Reviewing new additions to article space is important. Reviewing new additions to project space is helpful (although we don’t see a lot of such nominations because new editors don’t usually create new pages in project space). But there isn’t a need to review new drafts quickly, because we can leave useless drafts alone. Reviewing newly submitted drafts is useful, but that should be AFC reviewing to decide between Accept and Decline, not NPP reviewing to decide whether to nominate for deletion. What is the reason for looking at new additions to draft space and nominating them for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]