Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanel/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 Close. Nothing to delete. Ruslik_ Zero 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Shanel/Sandbox
Both appear to be FAKEARTICLEs that haven't been edited in some time. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  05:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep-Looks like perfectly normal user sandboxes to me. We DO allow people to have those, you know.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't allow indefinite storage of fake-articles in the userspace. The user clearly isn't going back to this anytime soon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have expanded and added refs to User:Shanel/Sandbox2 and believe it is ready for the mainspace at Michel Maxwell Philip. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both just sandboxes with nothing harmful. Please don't nominate userspace drafts or sandboxes unless there is a problem that needs fixing! And this user was active less than one month ago. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the second one no need for user to main redirect. The content is now live and can live or die on its own. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Comment: The first sandbox has been blank for four years, so I don't know what you mean when you say it contains a fake article. Unless you think Sundar Popo is a fake person. The second one you could have verified is a real person with a simple google search.  §hanel  05:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FAKEARTICLE is an alternate shortcut for WP:UP. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The hell? You're worried that someone might come across those redirects and think what? That they're articles? This nomination makes no sense and neither do any of the delete votes. If the redirects were really causing an issue, you could've simply removed them. There are no valid grounds for deletion here at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I rewrote it, User:Shanel/Sandbox2 was an untouched, unsourced userspace draft for four years, so the deletion nomination of that page isn't unreasonable. I agree, though, that User:Shanel/Sandbox, a redirect, didn't need to be brought to MfD. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is getting silly. User sandboxes are perfectly acceptable. — Pathoschild 17:50:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep harmless sandboxes Secret account 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keeep Valid use. Unless WP policy has changed and says all sandboxes should be deleted. Collect (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:UPYES clearly explains how "personal sandboxes" are permitted as well as "experimentation" within the userpage or subpages.  EdEColbert  Let me know 07:31, 22 October 2010 (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.