Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Palin/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 - based on the assertion that nothing originating on this page was ever copy pasted to the article (if that is untrue then deletion would create a GFDL violation); page appears to have been substantially unused and is just asking to create a GFDL problem. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox[edit]

A little-watched POV fork of Sarah Palin - seems to be a place for people to add controversial information that's not included in the real article. If people want to develop the article offline, they can use their own sandbox and post the proposed edit at Talk:Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not belong in mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary sandbox page - POV fork or not, articles should not be sandboxed as a subpage of the main article's talkpage, but in a user's own userspace. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 07:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both of the above are wrong. This is in talk space. Subpages of talk pages are definately appropriate. If it is "A little-watched POV fork", which is far from clear, then it could be protected, but not deleted. If it has been actually used, then deletion creates GFDL issues, if it has not been actually used, then there is no issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I put a note on the talk page about the sandbox before it was created. When the article is protected a sandbox is very handy. When the sandbox is not in use it can be blanked. See Talk:Sarah Palin#Sandbox for article improvements. By the way, Kelly has personal sandboxes. If Kelly thinks sandboxes are inappropriate then why does Kelly have sandboxes. QuackGuru 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is rather tenuous; you are comparing userspace sandboxes to sandboxes in the article's own talkspace. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More editors are viewing subpage sandboxes than personal sanboxes. A subpage of an article is normal practice on Wikipedia. Those of you who don't want a draft for this article will NOT succeed in deleting the draft that many Wikipedians are editing. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article. If you think you are right you should MFD the draft that many Wikipedians have edited or admit you are WRONG. QuackGuru 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why not just discuss changes to article on the talk page like everyone else. QG has a history of creating such pages, editing them to his liking, then edit-warring his changes into the articles.--Hughgr (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is why the talk page exists. And if you have a genuine need for a sandbox, you can make on your own userpage. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article talk page states at the top "All registered editors are free to edit Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article, and constructive edits will be transferred to the main article." Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox is redundant of Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article. Suntag (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see anything wrong with having a community sandbox for that article. It's a particularly contentious article right now, so it would particularly benefit with having such a place to work on it how do you turn this on 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never substantively used, in as much as no proposed edits were ever on this page. I also note that I've nominated Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article for MFD at this time, the benefit of having a semi-protected draft for a semi-protected article is rather limited. GRBerry 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very very bad idea. Sandboxes should be limited to Userspace with a few exceptions. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.