Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow

 __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. ✗ plicit  03:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Clear WP:NOTWEBHOST violation that wouldn't stand a chance in article space. Nothing worth keeping here. Was prodded by but prod cannot be used on drafts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Multiple BLP violations. Possibly speedyable, but let's see if others agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: An editorial rant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. A clear delete. I agree with both of the comments above. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * G10 as a Db-negublp. This is just someone's rant about how celebrities are terrible people that are "corrupting the youth". This is not an article and contains a load of unsourced negative statements about living people. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for BLP violations. Does not fit any speedy deletion criterion, but needs deleting for BLP violations.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I think it would fit the clause of WP:G10. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree. There is also neutral editorial commentary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We are not a WP:WEBHOST for drunken ranting. (JayPlaysStuff &#124; talk to me &#124; What I've been up to) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete mainly because of the BLP violations, but also because this is a rant with little to no encyclopedic value. Glades12 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a G10, as this is nothing but an attack page disparaging living persons. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is just a rant intended to attack people for being famous and "immoral" (according to medieval standards). Of course, displaying their wealth is also a "major crime". Finally, its spiced up with the old nonsense about the corruption of youth... Its totally worthless. —Sundostund (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Rank and barren pontificating and moralizing, one might say borderlining on bigotry.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, and consider giving Uw-vandalism3 for the creator as still writting lots of ranting contents. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I share your opinion that the creator should be warned because of this, maybe even with Uw-vandalism4. —Sundostund (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2022 (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.