Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Embassy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that states "This page is maintained to answer questions and field complaints about Conservapedia. Answers will be given promptly." The place for such a place is conservapedia - it is not wikipedia. That page does not advance THIS project one iota and I would suggest breaches WP:NOT - wikipedia not a webspace provider. Fredrick day 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NOT what wikipedia is for. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete find a web hosting site, this is an encyclopedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly a violation of WP:NOT. -- Scientizzle 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely inappropriate. John Reaves (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Someone must have lost track of which website they are on. --StuffOfInterest 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Grrrrr . . . . IvoShandor 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crap, political whining on top of it ("boo-hoo, the evil Conservatives banned me!" isn't going to help imrpove cross-wiki relations, even if that was a useful goal) Milto LOL pia 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course, but don't go overboard here, it's an understandable error. Geo.plrd probably spends far more time on WP than on Conservapedia, so it's understandable he'd want to pick stuff up here. Unfortunately, of course, the fundamentally different goals of the projects make that problematic for us, so we have to remove this page and gently inform geo.plrd that he should use email for that stuff. But let's not get out the tar and feathers just yet, eh? Guy (Help!) 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not appropriate... - Denny 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and warn (followed by blocks, etc.) users who pull this over onto other pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Consumed Crustacean. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a site for discussing Conservapedia articles. It's called "Conservapedia". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOT vio. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT an embassy. KrakatoaKatie 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't they have talk pages on Conservapedia? Oh, I forgot, they don't allow anonymous editors. --Edokter (Talk) 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the nicest way possible per JzG ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inconsistent with WP:NOT. (Don't they have space at their own wiki? Very odd.) semper fictilis 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear violation of WP:NOT per above. Hut 8.5 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hold the tar and feathers, per Guy. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what everyone else said, WP:NOT free webhosting. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete page that's clearly against the purpose of Wikipedia and userspace. --Maelwys 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with kindness but can everyone piling on here also help ensure that Talk:Conservapedia is kept free of off-topic comments? Andjam 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in a polite way per all above. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 22:43, 20 March 2007 (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.