Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nazistic Tendency

 __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: no consensus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nazistic Tendency


Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this could be a Wiktionary entry (nazistic does not exist). Jc86035 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, copyright infringement of https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nazistic. Jc86035 (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sense transwikying this, there's nothing here worth saving. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I doubt the draft will get very far, but nominating a draft for deletion just over an hour after creation is excessive. Give the creator a chance. It'll be deleted under G13 if no improvements are made in six months anyway.  Hut 8.5  20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - As per Hut 8.5, it is too quick on the trigger to nominate an hour after creation. I assume that the nominator wasn't aware of NSFW, which is warranted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry; not particularly familiar with reviewing drafts. Jc86035 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Welcome to reviewing drafts. Were you reviewing this draft, or did you encounter it on NPP?  (If you aren't familiar with reviewing drafts and encounter problematic ones on NPP, it might be a good idea to leave them for a draft reviewer, especially since there isn't a need to act quickly  to keep article space clean.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I happened to run into it while using the Special:RecentChanges filters. Jc86035 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a quick AfC decline as not suitable. Editor has this week to show it is something useful. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be deleted here under article deletion criteria a draft is supposed to have been "repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement". This one hasn't even been submitted once.  Hut 8.5  20:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is but one reason we might delete a draft - not the only one. Why is no one noticing this is a copyvio. Are you really voting to keep a copyvio? Legacypac (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a copyvio. It was a copyvio but the nominator removed the copyvio before nominating the page for deletion. That is only one reason why we might want to delete a draft, but it's the only one which has been given for the deletion of this draft. The arguments for deletion are all that the topic would fail some mainspace inclusion criterion.  Hut 8.5  09:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hut 8.5 and WP:NOTCENSORED. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Copyvio content has been removed and revision deleted, so it is not an issue. Draft has not been repeatedly submitted, indeed not even once. Nominated far too soon after creation -- draft space is supposed to give time to develop things not yet valid in mainspace. No policy-based reason for deletion of a draft has been provided. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:11, 23 June 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.