Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nman649/story
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 debate was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Nman649/story
Unencyclopaedic and irrelevant to the work of the encylopaedia. asenine say what? 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no where else to make stuff like this! please let me have the page! Nman649 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Helo? nman (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. asenine say what? 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEBHOST and unencyclopaedic (aka, per nom). Nman649, have you tried registering at blogspot.com? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:WEBHOST violation. Get a MySpace page or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, but jiminy, be nice to the kid. DavidOaks (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SNOW? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above, WP is not a free webhost. There are other places for writing a story. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:34, May 8, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — Its presence does not harm Wikipedia, and its deletion would not help Wikipedia. Therefore, there is no valid reason to delete it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- omfg, WP:NOHARM and WP:IAR invoked on the same sentence. Well, being more serious, there is the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we should use for stuff that helps to make an encyclopedia, and that wikipedia is not a free WP:WEBHOST for people to put their stuff on a web page. This user should find a website dedicated to hosting plain-text content for free --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of citing rules, why not make arguments? Please tell me, what practical positive difference would result from deleting this that would make it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about that what we win from deleting, it's about what we lose by letting people use wikipedia pages to host their personal stuff, that's why I cite WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia servers and badnwith are supported with donations of harware and money. But those donations are because the donators support the cause of wikipedia of making a free encyclopedia. So, if we start letting people use the pages for blogs and personal stuff then the donators will not be happy and may stop donating. That is bad. Also, this is not alphabet soup. This is relevant policies that editors are supposed to follow. We are supposed to follow them, there is no need to explain why they were created on the first place every time you use them on an argument. If the editor is using the page for free hosting of his stuff, then WP:WEBHOST applies, we have no need to make an argument other than to show that the editor is really using wikipedia as a web host. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Enric, don't let yourself be dragged into this. Just ignore him because his vote really makes no difference here, anyways. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- We aren't supposed to follow any of these so-called "policies." They're totally non-binding. They're meaningless. All that matters is doing what makes sense, and you have yet to explain how deleting this would be worth the trouble. Really, that's the only relevant criterion: is it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "so called policies"? we are not supposed to follow them? Please read Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Please_familiarize_yourself_with_the_following_policies, follow the links, and read them. Right now you are just making an uninformed opinion. I urge the closing admin to ignore !votes that choose to totally ignore relevant policies --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that section of the page you mentioned merely perpetuates the myth; it is indeed a myth. I submit that it is you who are uninformed; those of us who have been around longer know what these "policies" are really intended to be. You're part of a newer generation that, fundamentally, gets it wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, either that, or maybe consensus has changed since you started editing --Enric Naval (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that section of the page you mentioned merely perpetuates the myth; it is indeed a myth. I submit that it is you who are uninformed; those of us who have been around longer know what these "policies" are really intended to be. You're part of a newer generation that, fundamentally, gets it wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- "so called policies"? we are not supposed to follow them? Please read Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Please_familiarize_yourself_with_the_following_policies, follow the links, and read them. Right now you are just making an uninformed opinion. I urge the closing admin to ignore !votes that choose to totally ignore relevant policies --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about that what we win from deleting, it's about what we lose by letting people use wikipedia pages to host their personal stuff, that's why I cite WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia servers and badnwith are supported with donations of harware and money. But those donations are because the donators support the cause of wikipedia of making a free encyclopedia. So, if we start letting people use the pages for blogs and personal stuff then the donators will not be happy and may stop donating. That is bad. Also, this is not alphabet soup. This is relevant policies that editors are supposed to follow. We are supposed to follow them, there is no need to explain why they were created on the first place every time you use them on an argument. If the editor is using the page for free hosting of his stuff, then WP:WEBHOST applies, we have no need to make an argument other than to show that the editor is really using wikipedia as a web host. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of citing rules, why not make arguments? Please tell me, what practical positive difference would result from deleting this that would make it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- omfg, WP:NOHARM and WP:IAR invoked on the same sentence. Well, being more serious, there is the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we should use for stuff that helps to make an encyclopedia, and that wikipedia is not a free WP:WEBHOST for people to put their stuff on a web page. This user should find a website dedicated to hosting plain-text content for free --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: MySpace != Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not a relevant criterion. Making sense is way more important than following a bunch of non-binding and irrelevant alphabet soup. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Tell him about myspace, and old fashioned notebooks. One the other hand, while his idea of contributions is completely in the wrong direction, he might be turned around. Be nice. Refer to WP:5P. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- lol. Yeah, he needs maturing a bit, but he can start doing some stuff and wind up being a good editor someday. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (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.
