Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kendelarosa5357/llpi-job


 * 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. Author has withdrawn objections to deletion.

User:Kendelarosa5357/llpi-job
Improper use of Userspace. ViperSnake151 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Draft of a theoretical constitution for a film group is improper? Definitely a "No Harm" case.  Active editor ouside his film constitution project.  Article not here long enough to be a "too long storage" case either.  Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this isn't an article, this is the equivalent of putting one's schoolwork in one's userspace. Nothing to do with the encyclopedia at all. // roux   17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roux, very good observation. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The supposed constitution of our organization is stored here for the purpose that we may edit it at any computer cafe, especially me (because I’m not always at my destop). The “article” is saved under my “user article” namespace and not under a stand alone “official article” so to speak.  Although the article shall be blanked or “deleted” ones it done (15 January 2009, deadline), it should not be deleted by other reasons thereof.


 * Moreover, the article, again I say, is saved under a “user article” name therefore it is under my scrutiny or “personal interest”. I agree with his statement “this isn't an article” and yes, it is not, so now why engage in the “personal” engagements or like you point out “schoolwork” of “private” users after all the “article” does not infringe other articles or policies thereof, and furthermore the fact that the article is under a “user article” namespace qualifies its self as “isolated from Wikipedia proper”. Kendelarosa5357 (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a webhost. You should probably also read WP:UP. If you need this data accessible from multiple computers you should probably use Google Docs or a similar service. // roux   08:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for pointing things out... peace... lead the way for deletion... Kendelarosa5357 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Google Docs is also a more useful service for what you are doing, as the documents hosted there are kept in a much more open format than the wiki format, which will make printing/distribution/editing by other people far easier. Cheers. // roux   17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. But give Kendelarosa5357 enough time to move the text somewhere like Google Docs. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The explanation given in the keep !vote of Kendelarosa5357 makes it very clear that the page is an external project entirely unrelated to Wikipedia but using Wikipedia as a free webhost. Clearly violates WP:UP. Nsk92 (talk) 10:51, 20 December 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.