Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Garyvines/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. — xaosflux  Talk 18:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Garyvines/sandbox


Highly misleading. Written various articles on Sandbox. Clearly Google search helping those article to be shown as Wikipedia page. Most of them being deleted as mere promotions, References are highly questionable for their credibility. Sandbox is listed in Software, IT Management and sub categories as shown as original page in wikipedia but it is clearly not. Light2021 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure user pages (such as sandboxes) are not indexed by search engines. Have you asked about the purpose of the content of his sandbox? clpo13(talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the sandbox has been listed among categories as being original. it is misleading as being the Published articles. In search it is going to the empty deleted page. Wikipedia as a source of high credibility helps such companies to make reputation online. definitely I will look into it, as you suggested. thanks. Light2021 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * response Perhaps I have erred in the use of Sandbox - I have used them to create and store various drafts of material that may or may not be suitable for future articles. It simply saves me having to recreate text if I find the sources or further information that would demonstrate notability of a previously deleted topic. If this is not a suitable way of managing such info, I am happy to store it off line somewhere else.Garyvines (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems what I am doing is discussed here WP:WORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyvines (talk • contribs)


 * Keep per User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring and per Garyvines' own comments here. I don't even understand the nomination fully. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is the sandbox of an active user, unless it can be shown that the content is unreasonable, there is no reason to delete this. They appear to be using the page to store "a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article" (as the newly added notice states) which is completely reasonable. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The categories have now been deactivated, along the lines of what is described at Talk page guidelines (which nullifies the last sentence of your nomination). Perhaps that would be a better road to take in the future, if that is the main problem with a userspace page. Sandboxes are automatically noindexed (which nullifies the third sentence of your nomination), and if the page were pure promotion it could be speedily deleted (which speaks to the first half of the fourth sentence of your nomination). The notability policy doesn't apply to content being drafted (which nullifies the second half of the fourth sentence of your nomination). Some of this content may potentially be added to existing articles (e.g. a company page), meaning independent notability isn't applicable anyway. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Users have broad leeway in their own userspace. It's possibly not a good idea to mix the history of multiple topics in the one page, but in a user's sandbox, whatever works best for them is their business, subject to being for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2016 (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.