Redirect to:
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge...
Click to read more »04:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTLINK. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. Article is full of external links...
Click to read more »protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) WP:NOTLINK, article holds no actual information. It's been tagged as a stub for an...
Click to read more »that's correct. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK and as it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)...
Click to read more »for nearly three years and remains as a simple web-directory page. WP:NOTLINK is pretty clear here; lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising...
Click to read more »April 2011 (UTC) Delete - not a single entry with article, pure spam, WP:NOTLINK.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Delete - unreferenced; no...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is not a directory of sources or a repository of links (WP:NOTLINK and WP:LINKFARM). Moreover the articles are advocacy WP:FORKs created by...
Click to read more »the expansion/cleanup. The External links section seems to violate WP:NOTLINK (IMO). I believe only the Japanese Film Database and IMDB should be here...
Click to read more »nom / WP:NOT Faradayplank (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK--Finalnight (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »been created solely as a list of external links to videos, contrary to WP:NOTLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Please do not delete...
Click to read more »subject. ... discospinster talk 23:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is not a directory of sources or a repository of links (WP:NOTLINK and WP:LINKFARM). Moreover the articles are advocacy WP:FORKs created by...
Click to read more »(talk) RT 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Comment Sorry you feel that way mate. WP:NOTLINK and WP:DEL#REASON seem like more than "fine print" to me but to each their...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, and this article runs afoul of WP:NOTLINK; the tabular presentation of the companies' rate structures doesn't change...
Click to read more »watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) Straightforward violation of WP:NOTLINK. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is...
Click to read more »language versions. And including a list of download links can be violating WP:NOTLINK. Not able to read into Hungarian or Slovak, I am calling it here with a...
Click to read more »third-party links to active drive-in theaters, violating WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Blatant WP:OR given the outright lack of sources and terms such as "Until...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. teh spirit of WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 5 December...
Click to read more »15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC) To further build if you actually read WP:NOTLINK this is exactly what this article is, a repositiory of external links....
Click to read more »particularly notable either. bd2412 T 18:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Delete. Lists of patents...
Click to read more »AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Strong delete - per WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIR. This is just a collection of external links that have online...
Click to read more »webpage (in this case, the U.S. government) violates WP:NOTLINK. Should an exception to NOTLINK be made for what a consensus perceives to be a useful list...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Reason: Delete per WP:CFORK, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per discussion at Talk:Opera Repertory of the Salzburg...
Click to read more »district. Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:NOTLINK. I'd also like to suggest adding List of Villages in Panchkula District...
Click to read more »update/improve. Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, . Requires regular cleanup to remove WP:SOAP and promotional materials...
Click to read more »next issue WP:NOT Which carries the two sub categories WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTLINK, as the subject's article appears designed to promote his interests and...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTLINK This is just a collection of links that has no value to the reader or any...
Click to read more »exact copy of Voice over Internet Protocol, would this not violate WP:NOTLINK ? If that were the case, I'd have to say Blank or Delete. 207.237.33.36...
Click to read more »–Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Delete a classic violation of WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Russavia Dialogue 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Keep...
Click to read more »babble 22:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Delete - clear case of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Delete per cogent arguments...
Click to read more »content and is basically just a list of internal links. in violation of WP:NOTLINK. The only third-party source currently included makes a passing reference...
Click to read more »and Power Devices that can be paired with the C6455 devices". Fails WP:NOTLINK. Unencyclopedic and is a copy of this which is licensed under CCA-SA 3...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article is a collection of internal links. WP:NOTLINK Jamez42 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Keep. First, if an article...
Click to read more »claims are not appropriately supported via reliable, independent sources WP:NOTLINK. Unclear criteria for inclusion in this list makes it difficult to upkeep...
Click to read more »Youtube videos are on Youtube. Article therefore fails WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. This has been explained before to the article's creator. --Escape Orbit...
Click to read more »for some of those court. This seems to fall under both WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Perhaps if some of the First Amendment discussion directly related to...
Click to read more »consensus is that mere lists of links do not belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTLINK There are few facts in the article, and the links do not serve as verifying...
Click to read more »textbook NOTLAW (WP:NOTLAW) – Wikipedia is not governed by statute NOTLINK (WP:NOTLINK) – Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or...
Click to read more »Milburn (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Delete. Variously violates WP:NOTLINK, WP:IINFO, and (in such portions of entries as "Age" and "Era") WP:OR....
Click to read more »notability guidelines, notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, WP:NOTLINK/WP:NOTDIR, and probably several other guidelines or policies I failed to...
Click to read more »added by 132.236.167.183 (talk • contribs) Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC) How do we tell the diference...
Click to read more »organizational and navigational aids to articles within WP, per point 2 in WP:NOTLINK. If you are concerned about the content of the article, add it to your...
Click to read more »intended to prevent. In addition, such a list fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTLINK. What do you find unclear here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:34...
Click to read more »collection of external links or an internet directory, it is contrary to WP:NOTLINK. JGHowes talk 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »like it needs it. Atyndall93 | talk 10:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTLINK. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC) *Keep Article is in a...
Click to read more »used by a number of pages --Keith 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, it's an encyclopedia. I think your...
Click to read more »inline}} – inline template to flag external links that may fail WP:EL or WP:NOTLINK. (Template deleted September 12, 2011) {{Fact-now}} – pointless wrapper...
Click to read more »need to determine is whether it fits with WP article guidelines and WP:NOTLINK is a strong case for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:25, 20 July...
Click to read more »JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) *Delete per nom and WP:NOTLINK. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Keep - Looking more...
Click to read more »WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here (neither does WP:PRODUCT) - in fact, WP:NOTLINK even explicitly excludes disambiguation pages and lists: "Internal links...
Click to read more »history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTLINK ninety:one 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete. This list does not only...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTLINK. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Delete- Wikipedia is not a...
Click to read more »13 December 2013 (UTC) Delete If WP:NOT applies, it is most likely WP:NOTLINK. This is a mere re-packaging of links to chapters as can be found on the...
Click to read more »nom on this one. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTLINK says Wikipedia articles are not a mere collections of external links or...
Click to read more »party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. If any of these organisations were notable enough to have an article,...
Click to read more »(talk|contribs) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY...
Click to read more »TWL) Article is primarily a massive linkfarm. Blatant violation of WP:NOTLINKS policy. Talk page indicates it has been speedily-deleted before, and possibly...
Click to read more »Michael Hardy (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:ORG and WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTWEBSPACE and WP:PROMOTION.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:13, 10 March...
Click to read more »this article should be deleted: WP:NOTSOAPBOX , WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTLINK , WP:GNG , WP:NRVE and WP:MADEUP; The user who created the page has less...
Click to read more »(talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - a clear cut case of WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINK.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment - note that the...
Click to read more »this article. There are now 25 links on this article, falling foul of WP:NOTLINK and WP:SPAM. Additionally, most of those links are not independent of the...
Click to read more »WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINK and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia should not be used for self promotion - that's exactly what this page is for. I think WP:NOTLINK is particularly...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by people to advertise their products/projects...
Click to read more »may add.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELNO.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comment:...
Click to read more »copies (if not actually copies) of the laws themselves. As noted in WP:NOTLINK, Wikipedia is not a place for public domain content that is meaningless...
Click to read more »to howtos and reviews... This is not a Wikipedia article's purpose. WP:NOTLINK states the following: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of...
Click to read more »is, until this comment). Pretty sure it's a violation of WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. If you don't have an image, then you don't have an image. Take a list...
Click to read more »the cited websites are arguably the most useful part of the article!) WP:NOTLINK. I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good reason for keeping this either...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is NOT. Take a look at WP:NOT, and specifically at WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK to see what this means, and perhaps to find some good places on the web...
Click to read more »web-host for images. BencherliteTalk 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - Per WP:NOTLINK. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 09:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »for the trailer would fall under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTLINK That trailer and other trailers are posted on the Anachrodox website which...
Click to read more »is, until this comment). Pretty sure it's a violation of WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. If you don't have an image, then you don't have an image. Take a list...
Click to read more »Secondly, the German article as it stands now is also in violation WP:NOTLINK. When I first re-formatted Diplomatic missions of Russia back in September...
Click to read more »(bookmaker) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Template violates WP:NOTLINK and currently only links to one article. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview...
Click to read more »listed for comparison, which contain numerous wikilinks, this one fails WP:NOTLINK. Also it would have to be permanently tagged as outdated.--Northernhenge...
Click to read more »follow-up discussion about this. I do not think this template meets the WP:NOTLINK policy or the Wikipedia:External links guideline: it is not Wikipedia's...
Click to read more »and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading...
Click to read more »and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading...
Click to read more »which were not accompanied with reliable sources per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTLINK. My deletion resulted in this version. I have asked this user to remove...
Click to read more »April 2014 (UTC) Comment - Do the last five external links go against WP:NOTLINK? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I think all of...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "it exists, so we must include it." WP:NOTLINK. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC) ok? The article is...
Click to read more »useful for a reader of the article. The latter two I feel fall under WP:NOTLINK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Hi, the latter two...
Click to read more »something, let me know. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Doesn't WP:NOTLINK apply here? I would feel comfortable deleting the whole bunch, with a pointer...
Click to read more »are taking responsibility for their addition and it’s compliance with WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. In contrast, Tom.Reding’s unauthorised task, as admitted above...
Click to read more »Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Because per WP:NOTLINK this does not merit its own article. We already have a huge list here on...
Click to read more »Jontyla (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC) COMMENT - completely fails WP:NOTLINK: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is not a directory of sources or a repository of links (WP:NOTLINK and WP:LINKFARM). Moreover the articles are advocacy WP:FORKs created by...
Click to read more »WP:NOT. The only provision of NOT that has been successfully advanced is WP:NOTLINK#1, also known as LINKFARM. I say that, if the article was rewitten to be...
Click to read more »04:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTLINK. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. Article is full of external links...
Click to read more »and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading...
Click to read more »pages in infoboxes. In my opinion, doing so would violate WP:SOAP, WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELNO, all policies that work well at present (proposed changes to...
Click to read more »link. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose.WP:ELNO, WP:NOTLINK and WP:RS for starters. Un-impressive site statistics. Only been around...
Click to read more »dictionary entries, definitions, or slang or jargon guides External links WP:NOTLINK Collections of external links not providing relevant information to a notable...
Click to read more »qualifies A5. b)WP:FORUM may qualify A11 c)WP:SOAP qualifies G11 d)WP:NOTLINK may qualify A3 or A5 e)WP:NOTWEBHOST may qualify A7 etc... But what of...
Click to read more »oppose AC is not a source, and it violates existing policy anyway (WP:NOTLINK & WP:EL). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Oppose...
Click to read more »next issue WP:NOT Which carries the two sub categories WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTLINK, as the subject's article appears designed to promote his interests and...
Click to read more »webpage (in this case, the U.S. government) violates WP:NOTLINK. Should an exception to NOTLINK be made for what a consensus perceives to be a useful list...
Click to read more »watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Straightforward violation of WP:NOTLINK. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Keep. This is...
Click to read more »intended to prevent. In addition, such a list fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTLINK. What do you find unclear here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:34...
Click to read more »protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) WP:NOTLINK, article holds no actual information. It's been tagged as a stub for an...
Click to read more »(talk) RT 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Comment Sorry you feel that way mate. WP:NOTLINK and WP:DEL#REASON seem like more than "fine print" to me but to each their...
Click to read more »that's correct. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK and as it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)...
Click to read more »babble 22:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Delete - clear case of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Delete per cogent arguments...
Click to read more »news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. teh spirit of WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 5 December...
Click to read more »-- dsprc [talk] 04:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Delete Per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a repository of links to external...
Click to read more »collection of external links or an internet directory, it is contrary to WP:NOTLINK. JGHowes talk 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading...
Click to read more »for nearly three years and remains as a simple web-directory page. WP:NOTLINK is pretty clear here; lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising...
Click to read more »content and is basically just a list of internal links. in violation of WP:NOTLINK. The only third-party source currently included makes a passing reference...
Click to read more »third-party links to active drive-in theaters, violating WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Blatant WP:OR given the outright lack of sources and terms such as "Until...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTLINK. Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Delete- Wikipedia is not a...
Click to read more »Milburn (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Delete. Variously violates WP:NOTLINK, WP:IINFO, and (in such portions of entries as "Age" and "Era") WP:OR....
Click to read more »Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, and this article runs afoul of WP:NOTLINK; the tabular presentation of the companies' rate structures doesn't change...
Click to read more »WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here (neither does WP:PRODUCT) - in fact, WP:NOTLINK even explicitly excludes disambiguation pages and lists: "Internal links...
Click to read more »history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTLINK ninety:one 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Delete. This list does not only...
Click to read more »15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC) To further build if you actually read WP:NOTLINK this is exactly what this article is, a repositiory of external links....
Click to read more »relevant policies/guidelines include WP:U, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOTLINK. KitchenKop, I suggest changing your username or starting a new account...
Click to read more »district. Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:NOTLINK. I'd also like to suggest adding List of Villages in Panchkula District...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Reason: Delete per WP:CFORK, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per discussion at Talk:Opera Repertory of the Salzburg...
Click to read more »this article. There are now 25 links on this article, falling foul of WP:NOTLINK and WP:SPAM. Additionally, most of those links are not independent of the...
Click to read more »for some of those court. This seems to fall under both WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Perhaps if some of the First Amendment discussion directly related to...
Click to read more »party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. If any of these organisations were notable enough to have an article,...
Click to read more »organizational and navigational aids to articles within WP, per point 2 in WP:NOTLINK. If you are concerned about the content of the article, add it to your...
Click to read more »below. Below is the text from WP:NOTLINK: "Wikipedia is not a ... repository of links ... Policy shortcuts: WP:NOTLINK ... Wikipedia is neither a mirror...
Click to read more »used by a number of pages --Keith 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia isn't a collection of links, it's an encyclopedia. I think your...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article is a collection of internal links. WP:NOTLINK Jamez42 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Keep. First, if an article...
Click to read more »the article(s) in question is key: does the link really add to it? WP:NOTLINK also reminds us that Wikipedia is not simply a collection of external links:...
Click to read more »and Power Devices that can be paired with the C6455 devices". Fails WP:NOTLINK. Unencyclopedic and is a copy of this which is licensed under CCA-SA 3...
Click to read more »nom on this one. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTLINK says Wikipedia articles are not a mere collections of external links or...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by people to advertise their products/projects...
Click to read more »Jontyla (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC) COMMENT - completely fails WP:NOTLINK: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media...
Click to read more »Michael Hardy (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:ORG and WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTWEBSPACE and WP:PROMOTION.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:13, 10 March...
Click to read more »this article should be deleted: WP:NOTSOAPBOX , WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTLINK , WP:GNG , WP:NRVE and WP:MADEUP; The user who created the page has less...
Click to read more »TWL) Article is primarily a massive linkfarm. Blatant violation of WP:NOTLINKS policy. Talk page indicates it has been speedily-deleted before, and possibly...
Click to read more »particularly notable either. bd2412 T 18:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Delete. Lists of patents...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete and transwiki to Wikisource per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTLINK. The entire content of this list is a copy and paste from the Hitchcock...
Click to read more »Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Because per WP:NOTLINK this does not merit its own article. We already have a huge list here on...
Click to read more »consensus is that mere lists of links do not belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOTLINK There are few facts in the article, and the links do not serve as verifying...
Click to read more »April 2011 (UTC) Delete - not a single entry with article, pure spam, WP:NOTLINK.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Delete - unreferenced; no...
Click to read more »nom / WP:NOT Faradayplank (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK--Finalnight (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »added by 132.236.167.183 (talk • contribs) Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC) How do we tell the diference...
Click to read more »may add.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELNO.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comment:...
Click to read more »13 December 2013 (UTC) Delete If WP:NOT applies, it is most likely WP:NOTLINK. This is a mere re-packaging of links to chapters as can be found on the...
Click to read more »-- dsprc [talk] 04:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Delete Per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a repository of links to external...
Click to read more »Youtube videos are on Youtube. Article therefore fails WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. This has been explained before to the article's creator. --Escape Orbit...
Click to read more »(talk|contribs) 17:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTLINK This is just a collection of links that has no value to the reader or any...
Click to read more »subject. ... discospinster talk 23:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Strong delete - per WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIR. This is just a collection of external links that have online...
Click to read more »copies (if not actually copies) of the laws themselves. As noted in WP:NOTLINK, Wikipedia is not a place for public domain content that is meaningless...
Click to read more »JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) *Delete per nom and WP:NOTLINK. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Keep - Looking more...
Click to read more »the cited websites are arguably the most useful part of the article!) WP:NOTLINK. I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good reason for keeping this either...
Click to read more »the External links-section? I should say we should delete them as for WP:NOTLINK; after all, Wikipedia is not meant to draw attention to the Two Circles-website...
Click to read more »notability guidelines, notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, WP:NOTLINK/WP:NOTDIR, and probably several other guidelines or policies I failed to...
Click to read more »listed for comparison, which contain numerous wikilinks, this one fails WP:NOTLINK. Also it would have to be permanently tagged as outdated.--Northernhenge...
Click to read more »language versions. And including a list of download links can be violating WP:NOTLINK. Not able to read into Hungarian or Slovak, I am calling it here with a...
Click to read more »to howtos and reviews... This is not a Wikipedia article's purpose. WP:NOTLINK states the following: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of...
Click to read more »pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states...
Click to read more »section, which an entire section of external links. Please see WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK for more details. -Reconsider! 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC) {{Done}} -...
Click to read more »(UTC) Delete and transwiki to Wikisource per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTLINK. The entire content of this list is a copy and paste from the Hitchcock...
Click to read more »quickly removed. 03swalker (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTLINK. Link provides little, if any, use to an article. DiverseMentality (Talk)...
Click to read more »This article exists only to be a list of websites. That's textbook WP:NOTLINK. WP is not DMOZ, WP is not Yahoo. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)...
Click to read more »argument that it improves the encyclopedia (even if we pretend that WP:NOTLINK has no relevance). I see these listed here at least were all created by...
Click to read more »This article exists only to be a list of websites. That's textbook WP:NOTLINK. WP is not DMOZ, WP is not Yahoo. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Deconvolution - removed section per EL, NOTLINK Phase contrast microscopy - removed section per EL, NOTLINK Ronz has just bulk-blanked the whole ELs...
Click to read more »include is somewhat arbitrary, especially when a bibliography is lengthy WP:NOTLINK "collections of external links" - if one construes "external links" broadly...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) The policies are WP:NOT and WP:POV, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTLINK. WP:EL is how we manage external links so as not to violate those policies...
Click to read more »TobiasK (talk · contribs) has recently been adding links to ReviewRoot, a review aggregation site. It seems useful, but I'm not sure if it meets the EL...
Click to read more »are subject to the same criterion. c) Some applicable guidelines are WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTWHOSWHO. And common sense. The list would be in the hundreds...
Click to read more »argument that it improves the encyclopedia (even if we pretend that WP:NOTLINK has no relevance). I see these listed here at least were all created by...
Click to read more »April 2014 (UTC) Comment - Do the last five external links go against WP:NOTLINK? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I think all of...
Click to read more »are being used instead of redlinks, and really shouldn't exist per WP:NOTLINK. TexasAndroid is absolutely correct that this article needs a good long...
Click to read more »the expansion/cleanup. The External links section seems to violate WP:NOTLINK (IMO). I believe only the Japanese Film Database and IMDB should be here...
Click to read more »update/improve. Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTLINK, . Requires regular cleanup to remove WP:SOAP and promotional materials...
Click to read more »claims are not appropriately supported via reliable, independent sources WP:NOTLINK. Unclear criteria for inclusion in this list makes it difficult to upkeep...
Click to read more »