This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hm2k (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 4 January 2010 (Undid revision 335807440 by Theserialcomma (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:59, 4 January 2010 by Hm2k (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 335807440 by Theserialcomma (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 wp:pointy article was created after sources were requested for this unsourced list in shell account. instead of providing a single source when requested, User: hm2k simply cut and pasted the unsourced content from shell account 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. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- instead of providing sources, hm2k provides incivility and personal attacks ] ] ] Theserialcomma (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Theserialcomma (talk) 23:02, 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)