Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:71.34.84.213/sandbox




 * 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  speedied. The page should plainly be deleted for the reasons identified by all the commenters. We don't need a weeklong discussion of the precise basis for the deletion when the outcome is indisputable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:71.34.84.213/sandbox
This is more than a bit complicated and bizarre. Way back on January 10, anonymous user 71.34.84.213 vandalized the article on Earl Brian, replacing it with a strange paragraph titled "The World Around Us." The vandalism was promptly reverted by ClueBot. On the following day, for reasons unknown, User:JiggleJog copied the vandalism over to this page. The IP has not edited since the original vandalism, and it's never edited this "sandbox" in its userspace. I was going to ask JiggleJog why they created the page, but turns out that account's the indefinitely blocked sock of an indefinitely blocked user. So here we are. I propose deletion because (a) this page was created by a sockpuppet for no apparent reason, (b) this page was created in a user's userspace without their consent, and (c) preserving another user's vandalism in their userspace runs counter to the generally accepted essay at WP:DENY. --A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as patent nonsense WP:CSD or WP:CSD pure vandalism. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless to keep this. IP obviously had not any use for it. However it is not patent nonsense. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The way I read it it is actually nonsense. If you can make some sense out of it then fine. To be more exact, while some sentences make sense in some fashion, trying to coherently understand how all of the sentences connect to some common coherent idea is not possible, ergo my nonsense comment above. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems, but in my opinion it does not satisfy that speedy delete criterion, but we should delete this anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this is not patent nonsense in the sense of WP:PN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to make a very fine point out of it the introductory sentence, "the world around us is similar to outer space. we study outer space with science. but thats not important right now.", is completely nonsensical and lacks any context. The following sentences " the only thing thats important is our world. every one is treated the same as every one else. DO YOU WANT TO BE TREATED UN FAIRLY? then dont treat other people un fairly. give people some space." are disjointed and could be construed as somehow implying that everyone should be treated fairly. This is a somewhat coherent segment but it does not logically or semantically connect to the introduction or the conclusion. The concluding question "Treated unfairly? Do you have any facts?" is not connected in any way to the disjointed message of the previous sentences. If that is not "patent nonsense" by the definition of WP:PN second paragraph, it is demonstrably unsalvageable nonsense with no redeeming encyclopedic value of any kind. So I think that the spirit of CSD#G2, if not the letter, can safely be applied. In addition, this, being a sandbox, can contain anything, including nonsense. However this sandbox was created by a blocked editor for the benefit of a vandal IP which never edited it. The sandbox memorialises a vandalism which occured in another article and the vandalism is demonstrably unencyclopedic nonsense. Therefore CSD#G3 can also be applied imo. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the concluding question you reference actually appears to have been added by JiggleJog; that is, it was not part of the vandalism to Earl Brian. G3 might work here. As for violating the "spirit if not the letter" of G1, WP:CSD says that administrators are supposed to apply the speedy criteria only in the most obvious cases. The fact that we've discussed it this much indicates that it's not an obvious enough case for G1, in my opinion. Anyway, I don't think it's worth debating this, to be honest; we both support deletion and the page is liable to be deleted fairly soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was never a debate about eventual deletion. On this point we all agree. I just wanted to clear up a few things. I'm not sure if I managed to do it, at least for myself. It has been an interesting discussion, even if its subject was the degrees of nonsense. I just hope the discussion itself rose above its subject matter. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 03:32, 11 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.