Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious forums

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of religious forums
Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - UtherSRG 06:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is


 * There are many other Lists that have just links on them. Which is why I bothered in the first place.T3gah 07:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There are external links on every wikipedia page on this web site. Should I wrte an article then for the and make them External Links?T3gah 07:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can make an encyclopedia-quality article (or even a stub with encyclopedic potential) about religious forums, then yes. Otherwise this list of links should be deleted, as should any other page that is only a list of links. --Angr 07:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Auf Wiedersehen WIKIPEDIA t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * A total waste of my time. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Free? Yes free for us, the world, to add content and then you, the insiders, to make it the way YOU want and delete the rest. Of course you wait until someone else does whatever. ugh.  Hours wasted. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stop telling my friends about this place. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't even get a chance to add my content to List of religious forums before some bozo comes along and says "let's vote over the deletion of the page" because they didn't have the temarity to send me a message first. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * unbelievable t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately, time invested doesn't always translate to quality. I'm sorry that nobody stepped in sooner but these things happen when you're working on a volunteer encyclopedia. Rhobite 07:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 09:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * JWs post messages at religiousforums.com all the time. that person already deleted the article and then you people put it back up! are you crazy? I saw this whole cherade posted at religiousforums.com just af ew minutes ago. you just want to feel good about deleting it yourself even though T3gah already deleted it. man, losers.


 * Nobody is allowed to delete a page of this type without it going through the formal process of a vote. It keeps everyone honest and it maintains standards of quality by allowing the community to judge what gets kept and what gets cut. A project as big as Wikipedia needs to maintain focus on what it is for or suffer spiraling into uselessness. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 09:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete An encyclopedia article should be more than a link collection JimmyShelter 11:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ditto previous comments.   And give us a break T3gah: your investment of time was in creating a list of six links, with a lot of misguided formatting.    This "investment" doesn't obligate Wikipedia to keep your list.   --BM 11:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * He also had added a link to this "article" to 50-100 religious articles. I reverted all of those changes. - UtherSRG 19:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not a web directory. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this page should only exist if there are Wikipedia articles on these different forums (and it would be probably better in a category anyway). Talrias 14:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A waste of User:t3gah's time. JFW | T@lk  14:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm a bozo, T3gah? You should have learned from religious forums . I prefer to not argue with anyone involved in religious matters since such people tend to be believers in their own manifesto of which they require no evidence to support their behavior. Moreover, a list of religious forums is entirely subject to spam (and other mischief) being that anyone with half a brain can setup forum software. Such sites are not historical, meaningful nor worthy of encyclopedic filing. Ecumenical councils are traditional religious forums; however, we already have a useful directory of those. Adraeus 14:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no article consisting solely of external links belongs on Wikipedia.-gadfium 22:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Un-encyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not an external links collection or mirror. Megan1967 01:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists should only contain lists to other articles and not to external websites. Neutralitytalk 06:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The proposer is exactly right, this is a mere list of external links and a classic case of what Wikipedia is not. IMO some of the points made by the newbie who created it are valid but not relevant to this decision, so see User talk:T3gah for replies. Andrewa 16:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We include links on Wikipedia so people can explore further the topic discussed in the article, rather than links for links' sake. This is not DMOZ. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 20:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the reasons above. -- Necrothesp 04:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.