Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Proofreader77/SandboxC

 __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..  MBisanz  talk 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Proofreader77/SandboxC


Ok, this is one is a bit odd. It's a hodgepodge of different stuff, but some of it is copies of articles, which shouldn't sit indefinitely in userspace, and some of it appears to be copies of discussions that for some reason are preserved here. The rest is dubious at best as far as pertaining to Wikipedia in any real way, this user has been blocked for quite some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

*Note. All eight of these subpages of User:Proofreader77 have the same basic rationale: unused subpage of blocked user. I believe they will all have the same basic keep and delete rationales. I request that people about to comment here consider commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Proofreader77/Rhetorical Interaction Orchestration and Analysis instead, to reduce the number of near-identical discussions to monitor. If absolutely necessary, I suppose I can copy/paste things everywhere, but that seems confusing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "indefinite userspace draft" argument is a valid deletion rationale, so I don't oppose deletion of this one page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - and keep all the others - Proofreader might well be accessing/using them. All the users interactions with the wiki project that are not causing any issue can and imo should be kept as part of the historic reference of Proofreader's interactions with the project and the projects responses were by the way of artistic interactions. - not encyclopedic? who's to say -they are harmless anyway.  You  really  can  19:35, 2 March 2012 (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.