Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tanishq Modi

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tanishq Modi

I don't know if this draft comes under CSD G1 but it is in a mess. It can't be understood what is meant but it looks like the user possible copied random bits of text from Wikipedia policies. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - At first it looked to me like a template from a school assignment that is being filled in, now I see it's Wikipedia's biography template being filled in. I'd say let it go and see what transpires, the article was created only today. Draft space is the appropriate place to start autobiographies anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Autobiographies shouldn't be created anyway as it is WP:COI and the creator of the draft has the same username as the draft. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition against creating autobiographies. Doing so is just "strongly discouraged". And per COI guidelines, if an editor has a COI, draft space is the only place they should be working. Many new users start out with some sort of template, either a similar article or an actual template as is the case here. I just don't see a reason to delete this so soon. A month from now, if nothing has improved, then yes. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This user is using this project to try and promote themselves, They've haven't anything else since being here, It wouldn't survive at AFD so I don't see why it shouldn't be any different here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Look at the user's history. They have not edited except for self-promotion, and their objective here is simply to publish their autobiography. We need to use common sense and recognize spam as spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "It is understandable, [so] G1 does not apply … [G1] does not cover poor writing … implausible theories, … hoaxes, [or] fictional material." — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.