Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Syeddeep2025/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: keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syeddeep2025/sandbox

this page contains links, and im consider these as advertisements. so, please remove this page. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 15:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of whether the page contains promotional content, just having external links does not mean that the entire page is an advertisement that should be deleted. @Modern primat please be careful not to WP:BITE newcomers. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lets think about this user is old user. does it really matter? deleted content may still recovered by admins. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 19:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I plan to move this content to Draft:Syed Mosharaf Hossain and improve it per Wikipedia guidelines. I welcome constructive suggestions. Syeddeep2025 (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:DUD.

2. Improve existing content before trying to add a completely new page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plausibly notable. Reasonable userspace draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The presence of promotional links may be a reason for deleting the links, but is not a reason to delete a draft. What does the nominator mean by: lets think about this user is old user. does it really matter? deleted content may still recovered by admins.. That makes no sense. The originator is not an old user, and there is a guideline that says not to bite the new users, and you have bitten new users. Deleting a draft and asking admins to recover the deleted content is bizarrely more complicated than deleting the questioned content and keeping the article. That comment makes no sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a valid reason to delete a page. Yes, it is an autobiography, but no, having external links doesn't make the sandbox promotional in nature. I do agree that you have bitten a newcomer, a big no-no on Wikipedia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user explained what they meant with lets think about this user is old user. does it really matter? deleted content may still recovered by admins.. should be speedily kept and primat trouted. —-~~

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.