Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aimeewilbury/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 discussion was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aimeewilbury/Sandbox[edit]

An admin denied my speedy with the edit summary, "speedy declined. This is a user sandbox and appears not to contain anything against WP guidelines or policy". This sandbox just appears to be for vandalism. Joe Chill (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong decline. The original speedy request was inappropriate and my reasons for it, repeated by the proposer above, stand. An attempt by the proposer here to imply that this MFD was prior to the speedy request is at best a mistake. As for "it contains the word "poop" so should be deleted", the proposer needs to read WP:CENSOR, WP:VAND and Wikipedia:UP#What may I not have in my user pages.3F Tonywalton ^Talk 01:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that. I explained what I meant on your user page. I have read those three policies before. The word poop is not my only reasoning. Please accept the fact that I disagree with you. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said on your talk page that I do not understand Wikipedia policies. I have participated in AfD, speedy deletion, created notable articles, am an autopatroller, expanded articles, created and expanded articles for DYK, working on an article for Good Article status, reverted vandalism, and nominated many user pages for deletion that were successful. Do not tell me that I do not understand Wikipedia policies. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case you appear not to have done. Whether or not you have appreciated WP policy elsewhere is irrelevant. Please confine the debate on this specific user sandbox to this page; I state here that I am unwilling to talk to you on my talkpage regarding this. I shall leave your contributions there but will not reply to them. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors have different opinions about policies. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant because that should show you not to automatically say that I do not understand Wikipedia policies and that it was a mistake. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not read policy talk pages and look at pages for deletion? You should be well aware that policies are constantly debated and pages are considered for deletion based on those opinions on a case by case basis. I have reported many more sandboxes like this and several admins have been deleting them. You are not just saying that I do not understand Wikipedia policies, you are also saying that those admins don't understand them either. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that going into the userspace and deleting a sandbox page is a rather extreme action, however I also see no reason why we should be required to host such worthless and ridiculously juvenile content unto perpetuity if the editor who is hosting the page has not edited in four years and was never a content contributor, while —as evidenced by the existence of this MfD— contemporary good contributors are finding it objectionable. Delete. jorgenev 01:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sandboxes are not expected to be great articles. See meta:DICK for puerility. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even meant to be an article. See meta:DICK yourself, thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete user pages should contribute to the creation of an encyclopedia. Sandboxes help with that because they allow inexperienced users to try out wiki-code and wiki-formatting before they attempt to write in article space and potentially make a mess of carefully-made layouts. But I see no reason to keep them perpetually. The page served its purpose and now has none. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had the sandbox contained mere testing of wiki code, I would be ambivalent. However, the page contains puerile nonsense unworthy of interminable preservation. As HominidMachinae so aptly puts it: "The page served its purpose and now has none." User:Aimeewilbury/Sandbox should be deleted, as well as its talk page, User talk:Aimeewilbury/Sandbox. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't consider this page vandalism and Wikipedia is not censored. However the page has outlived whatever function it might have served and the user has not edited since 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It's not really doing any harm, but it's not really helping, either. Next time, though, it would probably be better to blank the page and move on. ^Avic _ennasis @ 07:32, 20 Av 5771 / 07:32, 20 August 2011 (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.