Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MessengerCrow13/sandbox/Tokyo Mew Mew


 * 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 debate was deleted. &mdash; Werdna talk 12:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:MessengerCrow13/sandbox/Tokyo Mew Mew


Abandoned sandbox versions of Tokyo Mew Mew and related articles. They have all gone far beyond these versions now and since MessengerCrow13 has not edited this pages since October 2007. She herself has also not done any editing at all since November 5, 2007. The translations page is a mix of WP:OR items that were once in other TMM pages. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all  per nom - certainly appear to be abandoned by sandbox owner - last edit by him/her was about October 2007.-- VS talk 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as abandoned draft test page. Notice that it's just a copy/paste of the Tokyo Mew Mew article as it was at 23 October 2007 and not an actual draft which was being improved, and that it was used only once to test something with the infobox and "nowiki" tags. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and blank Should this user come back and need those copies again. Best of both worlds. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He can get the exact same info from the history of the article he copied it from --Enric Naval (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he can, but I'm just not sure what's the deal with this push to delete sandbox pages like this when we can redirect them and keep the user's contribs. That's what I've always done, except that I don't normally name individual sandboxes anything unique, but simply reuse numbered ones (keeps those pesky MfDers from going after them). -- Ned Scott 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because its an inappropriate archive of a page and will appear in search results with the appearance of an article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would be fixed (in time) by just blanking it. I mean, it's not like the archived pages in the history of articles show up in search engines, so this one won't either if you blank it and wait for all the mirrors to get rid of it. And even then there'll probably still be some mirrors that still carry the page long after that. I think, merely, it's a waste of time bringing this to MfD if it could have just been blanked per Ned Scott's suggestion and achieve the same results.--  十  八  06:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd have just asked the user to delete per WP:USER, but they are gone and its not an abandoned and inappropriate archive that goes against the purposes of user pages. They are not to be indefinite archives of articles, nor are user pages intended to be personal web sites to store ones own personal research. There is no actual reason to keep it at all. We delete all of the user pages of indef blocked user, why is there such a problem with deleting the page of a user who is no longer active. If they come back and for some reason actually want it back, it can always be restored. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hum, by the way, why on the world would the user want to use a several months old version of the page, when he can just copy/paste the current version? I mean, I don't see that he used the page for anything that can't be done with the current version. If he wants to test something to improve the article, then he will surely use the current version, and not an abandoned old version that I doubt that he remembers or cares any more and that has no indications that it's intended for anything other than a one-time throw-away test (if he was still active, then we would just ask him if he still wants the copy, but this is not the case). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing inappropriate about it, it's just old. I have tons of old versions of articles in my sandbox pages, and never once has those revisions been deleted. What difference does it make for him simply because he gave a specific name to those sub pages, were as I gave generic names and reused the subpages? Simply having an old version of an article is not a violation of anything. Just because they could be used as an archive of some preferred version doesn't mean they are, and that's obviously not the case here. It's literally just an old user page. We have to remember the logic behind these rules. -- Ned Scott 08:28, 5 June 2008 (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.