Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Skylerd23/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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Skylerd23/sandbox


Old userspace version of Ray Charles. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, a content fork of Ray Charles. If it was created to experiment with improvements to the mainspace article, it's no longer needed, since this user has since edited that article extensively, presumably including whatever changes were deemed appropriate.  There have been hundreds of edits to the mainspace article since this copy was created,&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - I've never heard of a user's sandbox page being nominated for deletion before unless there is some objectionable content. Am I missing some policy here? My understanding is that you could leave things in your sandbox indefinitely. The fact that the user seems to have incorporated all the changes into the actual article doesn't seem relevant to me. I know I've kept things in my sandbox for a long time even though I incorporated most of the content back into the article but there were a few minor things I tabled for the time being. Speaking from my own experience I sometimes edit in spurts then get busy with other things and then come back months later. Without a compelling reason it seems to me that each user's sandbox should be their own and we should leave it to them to decide if/when to delete the contents and "the user doesn't need this anymore" doesn't seem like a compelling reason or a judgement anyone but the user should make. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:UP: Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template can be added to the top of the page to identify these). When a userspace page reaches a point where it can be included as an article consider moving it into mainspace or using its content appropriately in other relevant articles. There's no need for another version of Ray Charles out there. This one is somewhat obvious but a more obscure article, people won't know whether or not there's a current article (or one was deleted or whatever). Further, it doesn't include the full history, making it problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea that "people won't know whether or not there's a current article" seems nonsensical to me. The user has the standard disclaimer at the top of his sandbox starting with "This is the user sandbox of Skylerd23." Also, when you search for "Ray Charles" you can navigate right to the actual page in the wikipedia namespace and if you don't use auto-complete and just do a search for "Ray Charles": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=ray+charles&fulltext=Search The user page doesn't show up on the first page worth of hits. And similarly the user's page doesn't show up on the first page when you search for "Ray Charles" in Google. There is absolutely no evidence that the user is using his page as a web hosting service or anything else. I'm not convinced. Since the user doesn't seem to be protesting anyway I guess it doesn't make much difference but I think its a bad precedent to start policing user pages just because they've been there for a while. It seems to me that there are much better uses of everyone's time.  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is, we should have one article for a reason. While the editor keeps this around here and ignores it, other people (including bots) have to update templates with this page, remove categories, get rid of non-free images and so on. This draft is still within Category:Articles with MusicBrainz artist links even though it's not an article and within Category:Miscellaneous pages with LCCN identifiers and two other similar categories. If the templates like Template:Ray Charles or the others are deleted or renamed or anything else, it's an additional page that needs to have it removed. It's additional work for other people and for what? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2015 (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.