Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Ye/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: speedily deleted per WP:U1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Ye/sandbox

Delete per WP:COPIES. Contains copies of online game and League of Legends that have been abandoned for years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, but blank. This is a sandbox, and editors are allowed to have sandboxes in their userspace. You made no attempts to reach out to the user to ask them to clear their sandbox. Dragging them here to MfD when blanking is the standard practice wastes everybody's time. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (blank). It isn't necessary to apply deletion to WP:COPYWITHIN-problematic userspace pages. Users should not perform such unattributed copying to their sandbox, but if the revisions lacking attribution (and attribution may be provided after the fact) stay in the page's history, it is not a problem of such magnitude that multiple editors need to discuss it for seven days. /edit: switch to delete; I was not opposed to deletion per se but my belief was that this isn't something that merits a full MfD; WP:COPIES advises users who copy content to their articles to request deletion when they're done...and when they don't do so? MfD? There's a theoretical attribution hazard, so sure, why not... Best to treat such cases uniformly/—Alalch E. 14:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:COPIES. Forking content like this is discouraged, and if done may be done only for short term purposes. Keeping it long term, even in a history, creates attribution hazards that outweigh any value in reviewing the old unused edits to the fork. COPYWITHIN is a non-ideal remedy for when deletion is not an option, because the edits have been merged back into the article history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filed as U1 CSD. A simple request to do so on my talk page would have been sufficient. Richard Ye^talk 01:23, 4 April 2023 (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.