Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of IBM/Sandbox


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Moved to Talk:History of IBM/Sandbox, and moved the talk page of the sandbox to Talk:History of IBM/SandboxTalk. No need to let this run for the full 7 days when no one really wants to delete it, but the page just needed to be moved out of the main namespace. Fram (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

History of IBM/Sandbox
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is apparently an attempt at a discussion, project, or talk page, but it's in the main namespace. If anything it needs to be userfied. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Sandbox of proposed changes to History of IBM. A brand new editor placed those suggested changes (with embedded commentary) at Talk:History of IBM.  I moved it to a sandbox, which is more suited to the task.  This nomination of a page only a few hours old is quite inappropriate; in the associated talk page section I even noted that the commentary needs to be culled out from the content.  How about giving the guy some time to do the work?  Also, I note that the nominator didn't even bother to do the slightest bit of investigation... "Apparently some sort of attempt at discussion" -- there is a clear explanation and history on the main article talk page.  / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but see User_talk:Blaxthos where I proposed to userfy it. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I culled out the commentary and added it to the talk page, per Blaxthos suggestion. Next steps? Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Help the editor Userfy this. I'm not sure how a sandbox became a new article after being moved anyway, but this seems like an easy fix. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, it's not a "new article". History of IBM is the old article, History of IBM/Sandbox is the sandbox in which we're setting up the revised version of the existing article.  While I don't particularly object to where it lives, I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuss is all about, since this is just a workspace for improving an existing article.  WP:AGF not withstanding, this seems like a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense to me.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy move/speedy close - this is clearly meant as a draft, most of the article is a duplicate of History of IBM. There's nothing wrong with this article except the location. It doesn't belong in article space, it should be in user space or as a subpage of Talk:History of IBM. Hairhorn (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy move/speedy close I think everyone agrees this page is fine, just as long as it is moved out of the main namespace. One thing though, looks like there's already some drafting going on at Talk:History of IBM/Sandbox.  JUJUTACULAR  21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - Of course it's good faith and it is bureaucratic. It is a sandbox page living in userspace. That's not the procedure, and I can't/wouldn't userfy it to someone else without them requesting that first. Also, I'm sorry if you're worried about my timing, but no amount of time would change my reason for nom. If I made a mistake here it's that perhaps it should go to Requested moves or an admin board to get them to userfy it, but because it's also involving deletion of the mainspace article, and this gathers quick attention too, I chose this route. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it would be easy enough to move it to Talk:History of IBM/Draft, then place on the mainspace redirect left behind so it gets deleted.  JUJUTACULAR  00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good god, just move it into the talkspace and then speedy the inappropriate page -- with no disrespect intended, this AFD was quite unnecessary. :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.