Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tam109/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:  keep.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Tam109/sandbox

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;
 * — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Stale draft on a non-notable journal published by a likely predatory outfit. The draft's author made only ever edits to this draft on one day over 2 years ago and hasn't edited since. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, general wiki-garbage, nothing to add. Dronebogus (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Decline at AFC and start a six-month G13 clock. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Nominator complained of being edit-conflicted while I was closing... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is indexed in Scopus though... &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason given for deletion. WP:STALE defines when userspace drafts are stale. It needs to be problematic for reasons other than just notability, and problematic even if blanked to delete if it hasn't gone through AfC. Submitting other people's drafts for AfC when they're likely to fail as an end-run around deletion process been explicitly forbidden by RfC. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. I have nothing to add to what Rhododendrites has written, except perhaps a pointer to WP:NDRAFT's explanation of why MfDing drafts isn't a good idea unless the problems go well beyond notability (e.g. BLP issues or tendentious resubmission at AfC). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the last 2 "keep" !votes. Are we supposed to let stuff that looks like articles linger in user space indefinitely? We don't do that in draft space (for which we have G13 if something hasn't been touched in 6 months), so why is it different here, for something that was created over 2 years ago by an editor who was active for a few hours and then disappeared? --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no stakes in userspace. We want people to experiment, draft, learn, prepare, etc. there. This isn't indexed just like some goofy Happy New Year message I drafted for some user talk pages isn't indexed. They're not linked from anywhere, not categorized, and nobody's going to see them. Before this nomination the page had 0 pageviews. There's just no urgency to delete the vast majority of userspace pages. Sometimes the spammier ones qualify for G11. If they're harmful, you can blank or MfD if they're harmful even if blanked (attack pages, copyvios, etc.). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What you say goes all just as well for draft space, where we put drafts up for G13 after 6 months of inactivity. What makes this different? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to understand why the different treatment. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of Wikipedians arguing over a long period of time makes them different. :) What exists now is sort of a compromise, I'd say. Lots of people want a safe space for experimentation/drafting/doing whatever; lots of people want an easier way to get rid of bad articles. Many of the former would prefer there be no G13; many of the latter would prefer it also apply to userspace. Having it apply just to drafts is the compromise (it's an oversimplification, but that's how I see it). Personally, I see the value in having two types of spaces like that. In practice, when someone asks me how to create a new article, if I get the sense that they're promoting something, I direct them to draftspace; otherwise, I'll typically encourage them to work in userspace. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note A previous article on this journal was deleted after an AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a sandbox full of sand. No valid deletion rationales given as stated previous. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 19:51, 23 August 2022 (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.