Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonprofit Blogs
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 18 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 22:01, 18 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple collection of blogs. No references that show that all listed blogs are non profit. No assertions of notability for any blog mentioned. Any notable enough blog could have its own article. This could be a category, not an article.DeleteTheRingess 04:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of links --lightdarkness (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Too many Liszts! Slowmover 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as bloglinkcruft. Who decides which blogs are worthy of going on this list and which ones get deleted? Seems like revert wars and POV problems waiting to happen. --Kinu t/c 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete total spam -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category-fy. It's a bad article (which should probably list of... anyway, even if it were to stay as an article), but it would make a decent category. --
Rory09620:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete it is spam in its current form -- Samir (the scope) 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:56, 13 March 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.