Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mccre012/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. — ξ xplicit  02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mccre012/sandbox

 * Relisted. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisted. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This sandbox draft was tendentiously resubmitted after being declined as not being clear whether it was a test edit, a very incomplete draft, or something else. The attempted title WP:UCLA EXERCISE STUDY is on the title blacklist. If the author can rework this draft into something encyclopedic within seven days, then it can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get some more discussion going. As an aside, this looks like a copy and paste of the copyright headnotes for the Westlaw annotated California government code section 12940 or California Fair Employment and Housing Act, regarding an issue and citing an unpublished California district court opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly not acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. To me this looks like experimentation of a new editor, exactly what a sandbox is for. WP:DONTBITE the newcomers. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weird.  non-contributor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as not needed and not useful.  Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I nominated this for deletion, not because it was an experiment in a sandbox, but because it was a sandbox that was being tendentiously resubmitted to AFC after multiple declines. The guideline not to bite the newbies is intended for editors who will listen to friendly advice.  They should be given friendly advice rather than unfriendly advice.  However, stubborn newcomers have to be given unfriendly advice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 7 February 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.