Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arunmanoharmg/sandbox

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Arunmanoharmg/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

Uhm... I'm not sure what to say, honestly. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Largely replicated in . Certes (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this draft is done poorly.Catfurball (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keep an eye on the sandbox. It should have a mfd tag on it.  If it doesn't, put it back.  But MFD is a content forum, and on further review this is a competency issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a current draft, being actively worked on, presumably in part to add to Maheswaram Temple. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User already copied over a large portion of the draft to that article, resulting in it gaining two new maintenance tags. Just for note. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Largely incomprehensible. The article cited above also needs deleting, and isn't being improved either.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also Articles for deletion/Maheswaram Temple (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Holy WP:BITE. This was nominated literally one minute after it was created. This is not what MfD is for. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do note that the user in question has been around for years. Since 2015. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That has literally nothing to do with deletion policy. Besides, the user has 76 edits total. That's a newbie. The bigger point is that this is an active draft, and you've nominated it immediately without even citing any policy-based reason. Sandboxes/userspace drafts don't have to meet the content requirements of mainspace. If it doesn't qualify for CSD and it's currently active, I can't think of any reason to nominate it for deletion. If it were inactive, WP:STALE would come into play, but then, too, it would come to MfD only if "problematic even if blanked". &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and . The Articles for deletion/Maheswaram Temple (2nd nomination) has just been deleted again.  I note that the title of this sandbox version seems to have been changed so it will appear as a different topic article (and avoid a 3rd AfD). Britishfinance (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, many editors overwrite their sandbox with completely different content on a regular basis as and when they move on to a new task. I certainly do, and I see it as legitimate use. Certes (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as it's a different version, there is nothing in our deletion policies which allow for entirely different versions of a deleted topic to exist in userspace. In fact, many exist on highly controversial topics. I'm also unclear how this would still be problematic if blanked -- what reason is there to delete the history? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would normally agree with and, and especially for sandboxes.  However, my reading of this is that this editor has been pushing this topic a few times now which has required two AfDs, and with very little substantive changes.  After a point, you have to balance giving an editor space and time versus waste of community time on AfDs/MfDs.  If I really felt that this was a lost cause, I would ask for SALTing, and I fully expect this editor will still find a way to re-create this article, however, I feel that a point should be made to the editor (and to future AfDs/MfDs on this topic) that this is turning into a time-sink, and may even need SALTing in the future. Britishfinance (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (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.