| Revision as of 14:59, 4 January 2010 editHm2k (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,636 edits Undid revision 335807440 by Theserialcomma (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:59, 4 January 2010 edit undoHm2k (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,636 edits Undid revision 335807178 by Theserialcomma (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|List of shell providers}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of shell providers}}|2=AfD statistics}}) | :{{la|List of shell providers}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of shell providers}}|2=AfD statistics}}) | ||
| :({{findsources|List of shell providers}}) | :({{findsources|List of shell providers}}) | ||
| this ]y article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in ]. instead of providing a single source when requested, ] simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from ] into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found. |
<!--this ]y article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in ]. instead of providing a single source when requested, ] simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from ] into this new article, as if creating an unsourced article would relieve the burden of providing sources in another article. sources still have not been found.-->this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers. ] (]) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| * instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks ] ] ] ] (]) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | <!--* instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks ] ] ] ] (]) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)--> | ||
| ] (]) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)--> | |||
| *'''Delete''' - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per ]) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—] (]) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per ]) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—] (]) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| **If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since? --] (]) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | **If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since? --] (]) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:59, 4 January 2010
List of shell providers
- List of shell providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article should be deleted because there are no third party, reliable sources for this arbitrary list of providers which have not shown notability for being shell providers. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - As agreeing inclusion criteria in the lead (as per WP:LSC) is being actively resisted then there seems little to stop this article being on ongoing magnet for non-notable account providers and their websites.—Ash (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since? --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Adding a viewpoint one way or the other in an AfD does not preclude collaborating on the article, this also applies to the nominator.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, in principle, however your viewpoint and your edits are contradicting. Are you trying to prove a point? If so, what? --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hm2k, someone can improve an article and still believe that it doesn't meet the requirements of wikipedia. please stop being disruptive. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, in principle, however your viewpoint and your edits are contradicting. Are you trying to prove a point? If so, what? --Hm2k (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Adding a viewpoint one way or the other in an AfD does not preclude collaborating on the article, this also applies to the nominator.—Ash (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you believe it should be deleted, why have added content since? --Hm2k (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A list of shell providers that is unsourced is indiscriminate and impossible to manage with thousands of potential list entries. Miami33139 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Lists do not require a "references" section. The list is by best part made up of shell providers with articles. This is perfectly normal. Google: lists --Hm2k (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)