Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VijayManickam/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. Hobbes Goodyear and P199 provide greater policy reasons for not keeping the article and it seems that SmokeyJoe agrees with that. There seems to be consensus that, because it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manickam Muthar, that provides a basis for deletion of this userspace draft. SmokeyJoe stated that the article is "not stale" because "the information contained is as valid today as the day it was written" but that's not the meaning of stale that I've seen. WP:STALEDRAFT only uses the ideas of "not indefinitely" and "short-term" with no specifics. However, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Group of stale articles from Article Incubator discusses articles not edited for more than a year (there was no consensus but no one used SmokeyJoe's definition of stale), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Stale user autobiographies used a two-year standard, WP:G13 uses a six-month standard so the general consensus is that stale refers to a time period from which editing has not been done not a review of the contents to see if the contents somehow became "stale". Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:VijayManickam/sandbox

Delete as a very WP:STALEDRAFT of a non-notable person. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable, just not yet demonstrated. Manickam Muthar, a Sri Lankan educationist and community activist, the late Principal of something. Looks a reasonable attempt at adding information on an eminent person, and does not feel to be promotion. Almost worthy of mainspace. Not stale, the information contained is as valid today as the day it was written. Do not delete, but replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real??? This is a run-of-the-mill teacher that will never meet our notability standards. Nearly 3 years have gone by without any improvements, normally we allow only 6 months for drafts. Moreover, this page is nothing more than a tribute page written by a family member (judging from the user name), so also against WP:MEMORIAL. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I am real, and I stand by my position that your nomination was lazy and inaccurate to the point of not being worth serious consideration. After three years of inactivity and no incoming links and no pageviews, you want to raise a community discussion about a userpage that is not stale? How are you not acting in a net-negative? Yes, it should be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manickam_Muthar, thank you Hobbes. No, WP:N guidelines do not provide deletion reasons for userpsace subpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Editor used their sandbox to develop an article on this deceased educator in early Sep 2012 and has not touched since. Mainspace article was created and deleted later that same month for lack of notability per this discussion. Removal of this sandbox is just housekeeping. Allowing it to remain year after year serves only an invalid purpose: using WP as a webhost for a memorial for a non-notable subject. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2015 (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.