Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Niikwoert/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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Niikwoert/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

Abandoned draft. Does not seem to be eligible under any of WP:G13 criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Possibly notable accomplished non-private person.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Delete draft has been abandoned for a long time so not sure it will be improved. Vikram Vincent 07:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, her publications count as sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While her publications might give her some notability, the content about her is generally unsourced. Further the org she was associated with has been converted into a stub with its own notability issues. Vikram Vincent 16:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Move either to draft space or to user space. A sandbox belonging to a user who hasn't edited in seven years is sand.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s perfectly fine where it is, already in the user’s sandbox. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * indeed, we're in luck, because it was already in user space, and already in the place where the sand goes. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose the notion (as I do in a more recent discussion above as well) that the draftification of old content in userspace is acceptable. If that practice were to be normalized, those with the mindset that such pages need "cleaned up" would begin moving tons of old userspace drafts to draftspace to make them eligible for eventual G13. The userspace is exempt from that criterion for many valid reasons (including the sentiments at WP:DUD). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a userspace draft. If you've identified BLP violations like contentious claims, go ahead and remove them. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:TIND. If it is problematic in some way, it can be blanked with inactive userspace blanked per WP:STALEDRAFT; otherwise, no action is necessary. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TIND is an essay. WP:V and WP:BLP are policy. SK2242 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's look e.g. at what WP:V says: All material in [the] Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable (emphasis added by me). Drafts are works-in-progress, thus they may not yet meet those policies. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And WP:BLP explicitly covers drafts as well as all other namespaces. SK2242 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure (i.e. WP:BLPTALK). What portion(s) do you find to be "contentious claim(s)" (as Rhododendrites puts it above)? That aside, I have already suggested blanking if anyone finds it problematic, which is the recommended way to handle this sort of thing per WP:STALEDRAFT. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:25, 12 February 2021 (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.