Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scupper/Sandbox


 * 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 delete all, except for /sandbox. I will leave a note on Scupper's talk page telling him to contact me if he ever wants any of his subpages restored. That's all it takes to get it undeleted.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Scupper/Sandbox
According to User page:

While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive ... content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages.

The pages included in this nomination (see below) were created by, who has not edited since January 2007 and has made a total of only fourteen edits since 2004. While they seem to have been created as sandboxes for developing content, they are now (four years later) obsolete and potentially a source of confusion.


 * User:Scupper/Sandbox/city - an outdated infobox intended for Rancho Cordova, California but containing data that corresponds to Miami, Florida, which has been obsoleted by Infobox Settlement
 * User:Scupper/Sandbox/rivers - a userspace version of Cosumnes River, which Scupper created
 * User:Scupper/Sandbox/rivers2 - a shorter version of the above
 * User:Scupper/Sandbox/us rivers - a version of an infobox for rivers that is functionally redundant to Infobox River
 * User:Scupper/Template:river - same as above
 * User:Scupper/Template Projects - if the above page is deleted, this page will contain only a single redlink
 * User:Scupper/Sandbox/ - same as above, but with three links instead of one
 * User:Scupper/Template:cities uninc - functionally redundant to Sacramento County, California

There is no prospect for incorporating the content of these pages into the encyclopedia (it's already there), no value in continuing to duplicate content that is "meant to be part of the encyclopedia", and no reason to preserve outdated and potentially confusing information or versions of templates.

''PROD for userspace was recently removed, and one of the suggestions offered in the discussion that lead to that outcome was to make bundled nominations of multiple user pages with similar problems. So, here goes nothing:''

Also included in this nomination (since PROD is no longer allowed on user pages and an MfD for one user page seems like overkill unless the page is really problematic, e.g. contains defamatory content) is:

As with the pages above, it is a page created by a user who is inactive (in fact, the user never really was active: the user's only two edits were made within minutes of each other in August 2005 and both are to this user page) and which effectively serves to "indefinitely archive content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". Also, as above, there is no prospect for incorporating the content of these pages into the encyclopedia, since it's already there.

I have left a notice regarding this nomination on the talk pages of both affected users, so they can ask to receive the content of these pages should they ever become active (again) and wish to work on these projects (although, as I've already noted, I see no prospect for incorporating the content of these pages into the encyclopedia).


 * Delete all (User:RJPisharodi and 8 subpages of User:Scupper) as nominator. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete User:RJPisharodi, Blank the sandboxes. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blank the sandboxes, as there are no time limits and this is sufficient to avoid potential confusion and/or webcrawlers. Be sure to leave a polite note on the user's talkpage as to why we did this, how to reverse it, and to emphasize that he is always welcome to resume contributing.  Delete User:RJPisharodi.  Next time list separately unless there is a connection (did I miss it?).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will modify my notices so that they are more informative; however, why keep around 8 blank subpages when the user can easily request to have any useful content restored if s/he resumes editing? –Black Falcon (Talk) 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why keep blank subpages? Because users should be encouraged to manage their own userspace, because if users are doing the wrong thing then they should be encouraged to learn, because people learn better if they are encouraged to make their own decisions, and making decisions for others undermines the learning process.  Deletion, as an administratie action that the user can't reverse is an authoritative, patronising action.  This may be hopelessly wishful thinking, that the user will return and starting making constructive contributions, but what is it weighed against?  The server/storage costs are negligible.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "user can easily request to have any useful content restored if s/he resumes editing" This serves to enforce the admin/nonadmin power relationship.  Why should he have to beg?  Why not just let him act.  Blanking removes the content with respect to search engines, but why shouldn't the user have free access to his own past contributions?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Beg"?!? A simple "Hey, I'm back; I want my sandboxes back." is all it would take. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete User:RJPisharodi (Probably could have been a separate nom, shrugs.) - As for the others, Keep, but blank /Sandbox. Delete /rivers and /rivers2. (Note that /rivers and /rivers2 seem to indicate that the user thought that the WikiProject template Template:River, is an infobox template. Guessing that there have been renames/moves since then.) Delete all the templates. They can be restored should the editor ever return, but currently they're outdated versions and could create confusion. And for this I don't think blanking would help. No matter what the outcome, if kept in any way, the categories need to be removed from the pages. - jc37 03:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete All: There are too many pages containing unessessary information. DarkFireYoshi (talk) 01:24, 22 August 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.