Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged e-mail spammers


 * 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 was DELETE I know it is irregular to close my on nomination. But I think I've got a consensus here and many of the entries breech BLP. I could clean-out the offending ones and wait for this to conclude, but WP:SNOW is saying otherwise -Docg 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

List of alleged e-mail spammers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another WP:BLP disaster. Some are referenced - some of the references are not really reliable sources and much is unreferenced. We have a perfectly good categor Category:E-mail spammers and we can have a few cited examples on an article about e-mail spam (which no doubt we have). But this is just list cruft. Lists of people who are alleged? Let's not. -Docg 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's even in the article title. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete another WP:BLP nightmare Hut 8.5 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. Unsourced, and with a title containing the word "alleged', it really got off on the wrong foot. -- Phoenix  (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is spam, its all unverified and it contains "alleged" etc so meaning its even more unreliable.The Sunshine Man 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I must say I've found this useful once or twice, but it's a trouble magnet and unnecessary with the category. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 12:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I completely agree this is a WP:BLP disaster, however some of the sources are pretty reliable. If we allow articles based on allegations with very few sources then we are definately going down a dangerous path indeed. Sweboi 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all such lists need to go Bulldog123 11:43, 7 May 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.