Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Reema Welling/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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Reema Welling/sandbox


Not really a sandbox, highly doubtful with this start that it is intended as an article. Not touched since October 2012 (when it was created), and the editor is currently blocked from a more visible legal threat along the same lines. Didn't think there was a CSD that applied, though, so bringing it here. Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The instructions on the page indicate that the editor should comment here, but being blocked, they cannot. Please consider adding a note that you will monitor the editors talk page, and any opinion expressed there will be copied over. I don't anticipate this happening, but I'd like to avoid a situation where a [age is deleted, and the editor can rightfully say they weren't able to chime in.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Syrthiss (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not finding a good reason to delete. I'm fairly certain that  has the sufficently thick skin necessary to be a Wikipedia editor.  I think it might be reasonable to leave this for a while longer (untill say the 1 yr anniversary) to give the user an opportunity to remove the statement so that they have the ability to demonstrate their retraction of the threat of legal proceedings. Hasteur (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete: The user can retract it by explicitly stating that they retract it. Why do we have to leave up a page in userspace that can not ever have any value to Wikipedia? WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:POLEMIC seem to both apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete I agree with. This nominated example was not the cause of the WP:NLT block (this was), the creator has not appealed but appears already likely to be block evading using SPA IPs in the 113.193.* range, and had previously shown an interest only in Pooja Welling and other articles closely connected to that subject. She may well be her sister and also created the now-deleted Reema Welling. While I do have a thick skin, I raised this issue with the blocking admin and consider that " the most thing can ever be is a focus for more unjustified awkwardness". Does anyone really think that this will ever become an article/essay etc or will ever be used to demonstrate retraction? - Sitush (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-useful page that violates NLT and, being against a single particular editor, I believe it's a violation of WP:NPA as well. I see no reason to allow this to hang around. In fact, leaving it gives ammunition to any fool who wants to make a legal threat and have it stay: "but, but, but User:Reema Welling/sandbox exists, so my legal threat page should be allowed to exist!!111!!!!" Yeah, we all know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that doesn't stop folks from making those arguments. Lady  of  Shalott  01:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I'm missing here--it's an unambiguous (if inept) legal threat, the result of sour grapes over some BLP articles with a COI, Pooja Welling and Aparna Hoshing, which good old Sitush has been editing following the proper guidelines. The COI is evident, BTW, here, combined with this edit and the removal of criticism from that article (apparently it was not a commercial success). Those edits warrant a block already, besides the legal threat. But that's neither here nor there: we have a legal threat in user space, in something that will never be an article and has no positive function; see the four listed items in No legal threats. Those are a reason to block, and they are a reason to remove the threat as well, which is what I'll do. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add: Editor has been advised of this discussion and hasn't responded; rather, they continued their edits as an IP. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (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.