Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics

Wikipedia is not a mere collection of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. This is not the case. Bob 18:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:says who? Why dont you use your real account, instead of your suckpupet? Who knows best, a suckpupet or the admin User:Grenavitar?

:Zora, your bigotry is already known, but you take go to new dephts by this ridiculous nomination. If you meant what you wrote, you would also have WFD this two:

:*List of Islamic and Muslim related topics

:*List of Islamic terms in Arabic

:But no, you did not, even if both are in the "see also" part of "Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics". Shame on you!

• Comment Have I just been accused of being a sockpuppet? This is not the case.--Bob 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:User:Grenavitar stated " I have no problem with it" and did not mentioned anything about having any problems with a article that listed internal links. Zora, this is going to our future arbitration as well. Ill let a admin trace your IP. --Striver 23:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::Please observe WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and so forth. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry and bigotry, and threatening them with arbitration, is not appropriate behaviour for AfD. — Haeleth Talk

• Delete. We have categories so we don't need pages likes this. Marskell 23:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Marskell: I fail to see what this page provides that would not be done better with categories. — Haeleth Talk 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It gives overview. I belive that this level of overview can not be reached by categories. again, i point to this two articles that are not nominated for deletion: List of Islamic and Muslim related topics and List of Islamic terms in Arabic --Striver 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::So this page which is up for deletion is basically a rehash of an older page? Another reason for deletion, it duplicates another page. --Bob 00:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Sorry for accusing you , friend. This version haves a more informative categorisation, and also shows the relation to the articles in between whemselves. They compliment eachother. --Striver 00:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Bob, I'm the person that Striver thought might be you. He and I have been clashing for a long time. One of the issues is his constant creation of what seem to me to be unnecessary new articles. Zora 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Striver 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this looks very well laid out and a useful learning aid. JBH 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

::Note:This vote was JBH's 14th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits were in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bob ^talk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (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.