Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:What to do when leaving an abusive relationship

:{{pagelinks|1=Draft:What to do when leaving an abusive relationship}} – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Folkezoft (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - See Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. This is a draft that will probably never be accepted into article space. Any benefit from trashing these hopeless drafts would be exceeded by the burden on the community (and in particular on the regular MFD editors) of reviewing large numbers of drafts to delete them. The policy on what Wikipedia is not lists various types of articles that are not allowed in article space. In draft space, we rely on the AFC reviewers not to accept them. In reviewing new drafts to assign them to categories and WikiProjects, it isn't necessary to nominate them for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, only because of the sensitive nature of the topic. I generally would agree with Robert, however, we are not in the business of offering advice about leaving potentially abusive relationships (e.g. someone finding this and following it could potentially suffer real-life harm if the advice is poor; better we have a clear collective conscience in this case). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: NOTMANUAL. The page violates a specific item at WP:NOT, and WP:NOT applies to al namespaces. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• :It should be deleted as completely and a direct violation of WP:NOT, and it is not ok to leave direct violations of WP:NOT for G13, which implies it is ok to keep it alive indefinitely by editing, and may be auto-REFUNDed any time after.
• :It being unsourced means there is nothing in it that could possibly be used for something else that could be considered a draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NDRAFT. The "sanity" part activates here ({{tqqi|Drafts are almost never unambiguously and inescapably inappropriate, particularly on the matters of their content. There is very little a draft can do to cause harm to its subjects; draftspace is an unindexed "storage bin" that's only accessible if you know what you're looking for and actively look for it.}}). Is someone going to find this Wikipedia page when looking for relationship advice on the Internet? Implausible. Not bad enough to bother. "i would recommend talking to friends or a therapist" is non-harmful content. WP:NOT is about delineating the encyclopedia proper, and does not apply to draftspace in the sense that it indicates deletion of non-compliant draftspace pages. NOT problems can often be addressed by editing in general.—Alalch E. 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• :WP:NOT is not just about delineating the encyclopedia proper, aka mainspace, but explicitly covers Wikipedia. The majority of items listed in the table of content are not mainspace concerns. Mostly, it is not about articles. Yours and User:Robert McClenon’s !votes are mistaken in suggesting that WP:NOT is only about mainspace. Your arguments would have the effect of nullifying whole sections of WP:NOT. This is a serious challenge to the standing of WP:NOT; I will post a notification there.
• :On the part of your arguments that premise the page as a draft, the page here is not a draft. By “draft” we mean draft article, or at least draft content. This content is not in any way in scope to be mainspace content, so it is incorrect to acknowledge it as a draft. The usual support for the arguments of WP:NDRAFT are premised on the draft being a draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::I'll preface by saying that I disagree with your recommendation and conclusion, which I'll explain further down.{{large|**}} I agree that you've spotted a badly stated thing on my part.{{large|*}} By "delineating the encyclopedia proper," I meant to say that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content is about defining encyclopedic content apophatically. I then said that in draftspace (which is "encyclopedia content to-become") it doesn't apply so as to indicate deletion, but by laying down what pages should be (not be) or become (grow out of) in order to deserve promotion into an encyclopedia article. I did not want to challenge WP:NOT in the way you've understood it.{{pb}}{{large|*}}I was imprecise in multiple ways: I consciously ignored the "Community" part of WP:NOT while referring to the entire WP:NOT. More importantly, while I do not agree that "mostly, it is not about articles," because I see it as mostly being about articles, there are parts within the "Encyclopedic content" section that are about certain behaviors site-wide. Still, for example, manuals, among so many possible things which are not an encyclopedia article, are not included in NOT because there is a concern regarding manuals as unwanted to a degree beyond any unmentioned unencyclopedic type of content—they are covered to explain that encyclopedia articles do not resemble manuals. It isn't about "we need to prevent any appearance of manuals on en.wikipedia.org." Yes, we also need to prevent any appearance of toilet inspection checklists on en.wikipedia.org. That's not the point of WP:NOTGUIDE; the point is resolving confusion regarding Wikipedia's scope as an encyclopedia. Whatever distinctly useless material of an unwanted type someone might publish, I agree that WP:NOTWEBHOST would apply regardless of namespace, and it encompasses all unencyclopedic genres, including manuals. So yes, here we have a manual, not a draft article (please notice that I did not call it a "draft" but referred to it as a "Wikipedia page" and "draftspace page"), and WP:NOTGUIDE applies (I didn't say unqualifiedly that it doesn't apply), and through these facts WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. However, as is often the case with WP:NOT...{{pb}}{{large|**}}...NOTWEBHOST applying doesn't say: "Start a deletion discussion upon sight." Non-compliant content that resembles articles is often and probably on average more harmful than silly manual attempts and non-encyclopedia-resembling stuff like this. It's worse to have questionable encyclopedic-seeming content that someone might confuse with article content than this. And we don't go out of our way to delete the former and let G13 catch it. That's what finally fixes the web hosting situation in draftspace. I think NDRAFT is clear and right on this and is not premised on a draft being a draft but rests on the existence of G13, which applies to pages in that namespace by a technical criterion. It says: {{tq|... matters such as "could never conceivably be an article" ... are of much less concern in draftspace}}. Yes, this aborted manual which is inappropriately hosted on Wikipedia contrarily to its purpose could never conceivably be an article, and it is not a concern that goes above an average draftspace page and will be caught by G13 and deleted.{{pb}}If it is such a concern, we should have a speedy deletion criterion for web hosting in draftspace. —Alalch E. 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• :::There is obviously the concern, and the situation does not come close to WP:NEWCSD, so your last sentence is false. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Useless crud. I've come to the conclusion that I disagree with WP:NDRAFT (which is only an essay), and that if a draft that is clearly never going to become a viable article like this is sent to MfD there's no reason not to delete it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Robert McClenon and NDRAFT. Drafts that do not actively harm anybody or anything should be kept unless either that changes or G13 happens. This is not harming anybody or anything. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• :It harms Wikipedia to render WP:NOT unenforceable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• ::Why is G13 not good enough to enforce it in this instance? What does G13 do but precisely enforce removal of unwanted otherwise lingering and infinitely accumulating content in draftspace? The point of G13 is precisely to catch the bad draftspace pages like this one, and normal drafts, many of them good, are collateral damage. If draftspace was only made up of desirable drafts, G13 would not be justified. Deleting everything indiscriminately after six months of no edits is done to catch this. Why is more hands-on processing needed? Edit: I have now seen your follow-up comment above: You said it could be refunded and that it could be kept alive indefinitely by editing. Administrators need to look at what they're refunding and not do it blindly. I would expect an administrator to refuse refund. About the possibility that G13 could be neutered by continuous editing: That would mean that the user needs talking to. If they insist that the page should remain and say that they want to keep editing it and will continue doing so, that user would appear to be WP:NOTHERE. —Alalch E. 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Although drafts should be given a large leeway while they are being worked on, draft space is for draft articles. This is not nor would ever be an article. All pages no matter which namespace are for matters involving the encyclopedia, WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I was on the fence about this one, but feel the need to vote keep for procedural reasons. I'm particularly concerned that this deletion nomination was made less than 24 hours after the page was created. Editors need time to develop articles. While What to do when leaving an abusive relationship isn't an appropriate article, Leaving an abusive relationship could be. Leaving a talk page message to this effect could direct a new editor to direct their energies in a useful direction. Prompt deletion of drafts is inhospitable to newcomers. Daask (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• :"Leaving an abusive relationship" is also obviously a title of a guide, and it's hard to imagine that content under that title could be content of a policy-compliant Wikipedia article. —Alalch E. 19:11, 21 October 2024 (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.