Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Real96/sandbox1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy keep Majorly (hotter!) 20:01, 99 April 2777 (UTC)[reply]

User:Real96/sandbox1

As you can see from the page history this sandbox has had no edits apart from me MfD'ing it and a user removing fair use images from the userspace, its a total copy and paste if the mainspace article, I also came across User:Real96/sandbox2 which I too am nominating for deletion, this too has only been edited by Real96 and is spam like information, personal sandboxes are fine but when they are spam or not used for testing, they can be inaproppriate (Please not that the miscellany for deletion nomination of User:Real96/sandbox2 will redirect here to merge the two together). Telly addict 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am astounded by this nomination. You don't appear to have discussed these pages and your concerns with Real96 at all other than to notify him of this nomination, which seems extremely rude. He's using these pages for drafting, which is fine. Their deleted history shows that they are used for drafting a number of encyclopedic pages, paragraphs etc. and are occasionally deleted under CSD U1. They do not contain spam and are edited regularly. They are drafts and quite harmless. WjBscribe 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep established user using userspace usefully. Nardman1 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User sandboxes for article drafts are a perfectly acceptable use of userspace. I'm not sure what makes sandbox 2 spam, but it does not have any incoming links to suggest it is spam and it appears to be a work in progress. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Message from the accused party. Tellyaddict, under this policy, these are legal. This is an actual list for the purpose of my sandboxes. First, the first sandbox is helpful to improve the Tammi Terrell article. Second, the second sandbox is helpful to improve the Alpha Kappa Alpha article, and was based upon a press release, shown (here). Also, the second sandbox is not spam, because 1.) I forgot to add the reference tag and 2.) The notability is legit, because it comes from a highly known organization. I probably need to ask an administrator to delete sandbox2, but haven't had the time. Plus, have you seen this, Tellyaddict? And, FYI, my vote is Strong Keep Real96 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have because i saw it when it was originally nominated, I said above that sandboxes are suitable but these weren't even been used for testing, it says in the nom, this is not a bad faith nomination just so people know, I was wrong to nominate this.Telly addict 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and this is madness. Philippe 19:59, 29 April 2007 (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.