Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian wikis

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. -- Steel 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Furthermore, none of these wikis are particularly notable as websites. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I wonder what the use of a wiki bible is... Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOLz, people do have crazy ideas. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Listcruft. If somone wants to find this stuff they can google it wtfunkymonkey 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's fairly well-written, but it has to go. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, we cannot allow someone to use one wiki to proselityze the other. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT a repository of external links. A properly sourced, verifiable article on Christian wikis might well have a place here (if there is something notable about christian uses of wikis), but this is just a link collection. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's just a list of websites by another name --Steve 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete, per above. IronDuke 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 06:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BTLizard 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps if the article was longer than it's links, it couldve been cleaned up and kept.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeomMai (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy Delete G11 Blatant advertising (of group) or A7 Unremarkable web content. Take your pick; either way, it needs to get gone. EVula 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, much as I hate to say it. It is just a list of web sites.Dogface 03:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Okay, I advocated merging content from unremarkable wikis here, but... uh... a mass of unremarkable sites is not really any more remarkable than its individual sites. In current state, if any of the sites are remarkable, they could qualify for external links in relevant articles. Without any more meat, this probably won't fly - we're not a web directory and just listing random sites isn't helpful toward building an encyclopaedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Trödel 15:30, 1 November 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.