Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dmay81/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:  keep. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Dmay81/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

Indefinitely blocked user's sandbox page, which has no substance or reason to stay around. Rockstone  talk to me!   23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - User being indeffed isn't reason to delete their sandbox. There's no policy violation here -- it's experimentation in exactly the place where we want people to experiment. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but courtesy blank this coprolite with Courtesy blanked (was Delete, not per the nom's rationale ) (I agree with there)  as coprolite. This is essentially just an incomprehensible test page. There is nothing worth keeping. Allow undeletion at WP:REFUND should the indefinitely blocked user be unblocked and want their sandbox contents back (although I'm certain why they would). Doug Mehus  T · C  02:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandboxes are explicitly for experimenting and junk. There's no policy-based reason for deletion. Nobody will ever see this other than people trawling through other people's userspace looking for things to delete and people whose time is taken reviewing this because someone inexplicably started a whole discussion just about a sandbox. What is better for having deleted this? (we need a reason to delete, not just an absence of a reason to keep). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If we need a policy-based reason, call it WP:COMMONSENSE. That said, I disapprove of trawling through userspaces to find coprolite. I do think it was a bit BITEy to nominate this only days after the editor was blocked. Having said all of that, I don't think it's likely the editor will return to this account. Doug Mehus T · C  02:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * People only continue to trawl through people's userspace because people are willing to !vote delete on the sole basis of IAR. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, because the editor was only recently blocked, I will change my !vote. Would you be supportive of page blanking in this case, preferably with a courtesy blanking template? Doug Mehus T · C  02:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The reason I participate in these isn't because I feel particularly strongly that this sort of page is great, but because this long-term trend of feeling like something must be done about absolutely harmless userspace pages is, on the whole, a big net negative (not to mention a time sink). We have a deletion policy for a reason. This is a sandbox doing exactly what a sandbox is supposed to do, and nothing is gained by deleting or blanking it. Going through these pages and doing anything at all with them is just busywork that has no positive impact on the project. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They're still wasting valuable hosting space, no? I mean, I get the point that hosting space is more or less endless on Wikipedia, but there's just no reason for a page like this to exist. If it was comprehensible, then sure. But I suppose it isn't a big deal. The reason I even saw it was because I was looking at the blocked user's contributions. I think courtesy blanking is the best option and I support that one if we decide not to delete the page as a whole. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to save storage space you took a page that was 3300 bytes and created a whole new page (this one) that already over 5000 bytes. What's more, the page is never actually removed from the servers. Deleting just hides from view. It's retained so it can be undeleted in the future. Blanking doesn't save space either because wikis have histories. You just create an additional version to store forever... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * is right; if the goal is to save disk space, we would actually argue for keeping everything. Deleting something just hides it from public view; it does not get "deleted" in the traditional sense. Perhaps, then, Articles for Deletion and Miscellany for Deletion are not accurate, and should be renamed, respectively, Articles for Hiding and Miscellany for Hiding. ;-)
 * Nonetheless, I personally would have no objections to blanking this page, even if it means, in so doing, it'll add a few bytes of storage. Doug Mehus T · C  14:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. I suppose I'd prefer courtesy blanking then. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral - It's a sandbox. Cats sometimes use sandboxes, so that they may contain coprolites.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True, and so to extend the analogy a bit, wouldn't a courtesy blank be the equivalent of sprinkling some Kitty Litter into the litter box sandbox? ;-) Doug Mehus T · C  16:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment to User:Dmehus - Yes, but no need to be courteous to exiled cats. Just do it.  Just blank the litter box.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - well within what a sandbox is used for and I fails to why any blanking is necessary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (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.