Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tunakdude/testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete, author requested deletion on its talk page. Krimpet (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tunakdude/testing

Horrendously long (146k) "testing" page that doesn't seem to really test anything, and the way that user is using it caused it to land improperly in several categories that it shouldn't belong to. User didn't respond when I asked for a justification for the page's existence, and I see none. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - overly long and doesn't achieve anything. Addhoc 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blank page. The concerns of "overly long" and "in inappropriate categories" are valid, and solved by blanking the page. I don't see any real reason to delete it. --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - If he needs to test valid things, he can use the real sandbox. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • there's no prohibition on userspace sandboxes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blanked. It's just a normal test/sandbox page. I've blanked it to remove it from the categories. --- RockMFR 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think blanking is suffiient; simply blanking makes it easy for the user to bring it back for no good reason. --Nlu (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ummm... I don't follow your logic. Deleting a page makes it harder for users to create huge sandboxes? Huge sandboxes go against some kind of policy or guideline? The only problem I see with this page is that it was showing up in categories in which it should not. Blanking the page was a lazy way to fix this, and it is doubtful that the user really cares that it is blanked. --- RockMFR 01:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blank, good-faith testing page, the guy probably didn't realise that he was putting it in all those categories. Lankiveil 10:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Leave it alone, user is unlikely to replace it with such content since it was removed; a subsequent blank page within the user namespace is of no concern, is it? -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blank, next time, can we just approach the user and discuss the issue? *Cremepuff222* 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Did that. No response. --Nlu (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, he did respond, on the talk page of this page, saying it's fine to delete it. You could have just blanked it straight away without taking it here and saving everyone time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blank the page in agreement with everyone else who said to blank. Acalamari 01:39, 22 May 2007 (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.