 | This is an essay on the deletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community and may reflect various opinions. |
 | This page in a nutshell: It uses more community time to nominate useless drafts for deletion than to ignore them and let them expire. |
Sometimes drafts are nominated for deletion at MFD because someone feels that the draft will never become a viable article. Please do not do so, no matter how uncontroversial that conclusion appears to be.
Nominating drafts for deletion creates work for the volunteer editors at Miscellany for Deletion, who have to review the flawed or useless draft. MFD, like any XFD process or other community process, is intensive in its use of volunteer time. In contrast, draft space is self-clearing, because stale drafts self-destruct via G13 in six months. The deletion of a draft by G13 takes less than a minute, as an admin checks that it is a stale draft. The admin doesn't need to read the draft.
There are between 160 and 220 drafts deleted as G13 in a typical day. If five percent (5%) of those drafts were sent to MFD, it would mean that MFD would have approximately 10 useless drafts to review each day. Leave useless drafts alone.
In addition, it is possible that what looks hopelessly flawed and useless to one reader is perceived by others as being a potential stepping-stone to a more useful draft. At best, that leads to unnecessary discussion at the MFD. At worst, that potential for improvement is cut off if the draft is deleted, and its creator, often a new editor learning their way around, who has creditably avoided making far-from-ready contributions to mainspace, is discouraged. Draftspace is actually a great place to incubate potential articles where notability, sourcing, and scope of coverage are still being explored, and initial versions created there may look utterly hopeless. If the effort goes nowhere, the abandoned draft is cleared with time.
What should you do if you encounter a draft that is problematic beyond that it will never become a viable article? If the draft satisfies one of the criteria for speedy deletion that begin with G, such as WP:G3 for vandalism, WP:G5 for sockpuppetry, WP:G10 for an attack page, or WP:G11 for spam, tag it for speedy deletion, which is a less time-intensive process than MFD. Some speedy deletion criteria only apply to articles, such as WP:A7, no credible claim of significance. In draft space, lack of a credible claim of significance, or its sibling, lack of notability, are reasons to decline or reject a draft so that it does not become an article, but not reasons to delete the draft. The draft's editors may add such information to the draft later, either on their own or after receiving feedback after submitting the draft for consideration.
One situation when drafts should be nominated for deletion is if the draft has been rejected, and has been tendentiously resubmitted after rejection. In that situation, the repeated submissions and declines and rejection are using as much volunteer time as MFD would. However, do not nominate a draft for deletion immediately after first rejecting it. Leave it alone and wait for the originator to leave it alone; nominate only when tendentious resubmission actually occurs.
Another situation justifying a deletion discussion is a draft which appears actively disruptive, but not so uncontroversially that G-series CSD criteria apply. CSD is designed as a time-saver when deletion is uncontroversial (to a policy-versed, experienced editor). There are situations of suspected but less clear disruption, for instance suspected hoaxes, attacks, abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, where a discussion is warranted. Feel free to nominate a draft for deletion in such circumstances, if you are reasonably convinced the likely disruption is significant enough to warrant the volunteer time to discuss it.
However, absent actual disruption, leave useless drafts alone, because MFD requires more volunteer time than allowing the drafts to expire.