Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Howabout1/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 delete. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Howabout1/Sandbox

 * Relisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Longtime unused (10 years) sandbox of a now apparently vanished user who was last active once in February 2007, there's simply nothing here to suggest it can be kept any further time. SwisterTwister  talk  03:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion. It's not clear whether a workspace sandbox should be created like a draft and/or whether sufficient time has passed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that a sandbox hasn't been used for a while is not a satisfactory reason for deleting it. The user could come back at any time and be left wondering where his sandbox went. This user has not put Template:Retired on their user page and an insufficient period of time has elapsed for us to presume them dead. Editors have be known to return after lengthy breaks in editing. The fact that the sandbox is empty is not a good reason either, as we expect sandboxes to be empty most of the time. This is not analogous to the 'stale draft' because that is masquerading as an encyclopedia article, whereas this sandbox isn't. Even in that case it would often be preferable to blank the content in the sandbox rather than delete the page. Editors shouldn't have to have their sandboxes being deleted and recreated over and over again every time they want to make a test edit, which is the logical conclusion of what this MfD proposes. James500 (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pointless interference with other users' workspace.  This interference has more downsides than benefits.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No, they are not going to come back after ten years and wonder what happened to a single quote from a disgraced user. On the off-chance (as in .00001 chance) they do, we can restore it. Not worth debating. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Only editing experiments that have zero value to the project. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. I wouldn't have bothered nominating a nearly empty sandbox, but now that it is nominated, let's proceed with this clean-up. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:05, 29 January 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.