Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tenmei Sandboxes

 __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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei Sandboxes


Reason: I know it will seem mean to nomimate all these pages for deletion now, when the editor in question has just been banned for a year, but I didn't know these pages existed until yesterday. At first I thought he was just archiving his talk page, but in fact all of the pages contain a mixture of other people's comments, cut and pasted from various talkpages, interspersed with Tenmei's unique brand of commentary. User:Tenmei/Sandbox-M for example features a pile of stuff cut and pasted from subpages of User:Mattisse. In most cases, the copied text features disagreements Tenmei has had with other users, with further comments. User:Tenmei/Sandbox/Miyajima contains comments about User:Caspian blue and User:Tenmei/Sandbox/Okinawa/Hachijōjima contains a personal attack on User:Nick Dowling which Tenmei was asked to strike (and probably did strike on whatever page he originally posted it). Even User:Tenmei/Sandbox/Okinawa, which appears innocuous, has a pile of the same in its history.

Tenmei's thought processes are as transparent as four feet of lead shielding, at least to me, so I can't say what he meant by them. I don't think that it is at all appropriate to keep them on Wikipedia servers though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Heading added and wikilinks changed to indented pagelinks to match mfd2's formatting. → Dynamic&#124;cimanyD ← (contact me) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Tenmei is not actually dead. No reason to delete other than grave-dancing-exercise.   And we do not generally delete pages because of their "history" but for what they are currently. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is precisely what they are currently - a very good reason for deletion of collections of comments about users he has disagreed with in the past would appear to be "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." from WP:UP. If I'd known they were there earlier, I'd have asked him to delete them earlier, and I rather object to your exceedingly tasteless comment about gravedancing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I read several. IMO they do not reach the level demanded for removal, and the ones I read did not appear to contain personal attacks.  YMMV.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well. I thought the ones I read did - as for example the three cited in the nomination - but I'll confess it is hard to work out what on earth is going on.  Looking at it again, User:Tenmei/Sandbox-Q looks like it's just an archive of his talkpage. Maybe wait and see what a few other folks think? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Delete - most of these pages seem to serve no useful purpose. I'm loathe to keep them around, as when Tenmei's ban is up, it's not helpful for him to have constant reminders sitting around of people who have wronged him in the past. That said, it'll be quite difficult to work out what exactly is a talk page archive, and what isn't... The Cavalry (Message me) 02:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the sandbox is records of mentorship arrangements, etc. Haven't seen personal attacks in my (admittedly quick) perusal, and while some of the rest is impenetrable to anyone but Tenmei it doesn't seem to violate policies. I don't see the downside to keeping it, and deleting it is probably needlessly antagonistic to someone who will most likely return. Nathan  T 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Nathan. Cant see any content which warrants deletion. FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A mass-nomination probably wasn't the right approach considering that some, possibly most, of these are innocuous. Does keeping 100Kb of discussion inside HTML comments in a user page help build the encyclopedia, though? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it is any different from keeping an edit-history on any page. The practice at MfD has been to not find edit histories to be really worth deletion - the page is not indexed, and it is unlikely that any harm to the project will ensue.  Deletion, by the way, would not accomplish any positive goal.  And it is the requirement of a positive result which is lacking in this mass nomination.  Lastly, there is no requirement that userspace sandboxes be useful - this is not Thomas the Tank Engine, it is "userspace" and unless it affronts the community in some way or violates specific rules for userspace, the default is to "keep." Collect (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2011 (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.