Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records)

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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#U1 at user's request. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Subtropical-man/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records)

Given the crystal clear consensus expressed at Talk:List of best-selling music artists#RFC on article scope, this is clearly a content fork meant to archive a preferred version of (part of) an article which falls afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE. It's clearly not a draft since the content was altogether excluded from the list. — Coren ^(talk) 05:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's just another effort to get past the consensus to trim the parent article. Subtropical-man has already split against consensus and been blocked for canvassing the debate.—Kww(talk) 07:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: In the private sandbox, we can store what we want. Coren, certainly, this is not crystal clear. 8 users - support and 4 users - oppose, this is consensus, yes. Crystal clear consensus is 8:0 or similarly. Besides, now it is a consensus for above 70 million, per month or six months can be consensus to the 50 million, so this site may be needed. Kww, "to get past the consensus" - no, its not. This is my private sandbox, not exist in the public zone. Get past the consensus is reactivation of the page in the public zone. I'm not doing (re-create) the article in the public zone against the consensus and without new consensus, you do not have to worry. Subtropical-man (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after thinking and analysis - delete. Generally, it will not be necessary. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical-man, you're missing the point. Your userspace isn't a web host where you can store preferred versions of articles or deleted material you'd just like to keep around. It's not a "private sandbox", it's part of the project and must follow the same rules. — Coren ^(talk) 18:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, you wrote "it's part of the project and must follow the same rules" - generally, not. If according to consensus about split of article, the article will be split does not mean that this removed text from article (with the consensus) automatically must disappear with all the articles and pages of Wikipedia including sandboxes of users. This is nonsense. Also, maybe this is temporary consensus and this text can be useful later. Also, your link is only "guideline" (...) "that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I understand you, but I do not make backup copies of all deleted items, this part of article is an exception as above. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Consensus was reached based on the number of votes and the quality of argument. That said, the last person, who opposed, didn't seem to understand what was being proposed, therefore, shouldn't even count. This hasn't been re-created in a sandbox, Subtropical-man has re-created the page using his user name hoping to get away with it as a sandbox, which isn't.--Harout72 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You write nonsense. My sandbox does not break consensus, my sandbox serves only to me. My sandbox is my private zone. I do not care whether been or not been a consensus in the public zone. My sandbox is my private zone, it is independent. According to the your words "the last person, who opposed, didn't seem to understand what was being proposed, therefore, shouldn't even count", if so, your and Kww also therefore, shouldn't even count because this is discussion about private sandbox (you write only about the relationship between consensus and my sandbox), my sandbox is not related to a consensus in the public zone. Your consensus concerned only shorten the article, not other. Article has been shortened. Case closed. This is my sandbox in the private zone for only me. In my sandbox I can hold things for me, if I think they can come in handy in the future. PS. Your the breaking of the consensus exist now, there are consensus for 70 million, not 75 million. Anyone user may at any time revoke your editing, according to the consensus. I closed this case, not reverted your edit, according to the consensus to 70 million. I do not want to argue, you want it [1]. Why? Leave me alone. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User-space is not your google drive or your dropbox, it is for those editors who in good-faith are working on article content that has a reasonable chance of returning to article-space. Since their appears to be neither in this case, there is no reason to keep a copy of this article. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2012 (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.