Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MB writer


 * 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 move to subpage. No problem with keeping a sandbox in userspace, the arguments for delete seem to be addressed by moving it off the main userpage.--Aervanath (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess we were both closing at once, old history merged in to User:MB writer/Sandbox. — xaosflux  Talk  05:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:MB writer
User page consists solely of a copy of an earlier version of the article Michael Bowen (artist), violating user page guidelines. -- Sfmammamia (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Delete: No need for a fork. If he wants his article to show on his user page, he should transclude it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone actually asked why they're keeping a copy there? - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ask first -- the last edit was all of two months ago, and I find no c9mpelling reason for deletion at all here. In fact, it may be being used as a sandbox - an allowed usage last I checked. Collect (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2009
 * I left a note on the user's talk page on January 17. No response. If in fact it was a sandbox, shouldn't it be moved to a subpage? Per the guidelines:  "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content".   There have been plenty of edits to the article itself in the ensuing two months. --Sfmammamia (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Try as I would, I could find no official distinction between "sandbox" and any other names in userspace. Might you direct me to the guideline which sets for the need for such? Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the user page history and the article history that MB writer used his user page as a sandbox in developing the article over October and November 2008. However, the user has not made any edits on Wikipedia in two months. I believe that fact by itself qualifies this user page content as an archive of an earlier version of the article, rather than as an active sandbox. That is why I suggested deleting it in the first place. Per WP:USERFY, "Userspace material is frequently deleted via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion where the material is judged to be merely an archive of previously deleted content." When does a sandbox stop being a sandbox and become an archive? Moving it to a subpage would be my second choice, as the move would communicate to the user (if and when he or she returns) that general practice is to use a subpage as a sandbox, and it is not acceptable to keep an old version of an article in your userspace indefinitely. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I demur that two months is "indefinite." Nor can I find any rule stating that there is a magic word "sandbox" which must be the page used by a user in userspace.  Collect (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: In order to assume good faith we should delete without prejudice as it appears the user created his own article first on his main userpage rather than a subpage and than cut and pasted it to Michael Bowen (artist) when it was ready. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 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.