Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of followers of Meher Baba: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
Line 5: Line 5:
Massive list of people that met someone. The title is not correct at the very least as one section lists people that "served or corresponded with Baba but did not call themselves followers". I'm not sure how useful a list this is considering that the majority are not notable and for the others it's mostly an irrelevance (where otherwise I'm sure it's detailed in their own article or an appropriate category exists). [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Massive list of people that met someone. The title is not correct at the very least as one section lists people that "served or corresponded with Baba but did not call themselves followers". I'm not sure how useful a list this is considering that the majority are not notable and for the others it's mostly an irrelevance (where otherwise I'm sure it's detailed in their own article or an appropriate category exists). [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
*Nominator: '''Delete'''. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
*Nominator: '''Delete'''. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NOT#DIRECTORY]]. → [[User:AA|AA]] <sup>([[User talk:AA|talk]])</sup> — 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:02, 26 October 2007

List of followers of Meher Baba

List of followers of Meher Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Massive list of people that met someone. The title is not correct at the very least as one section lists people that "served or corresponded with Baba but did not call themselves followers". I'm not sure how useful a list this is considering that the majority are not notable and for the others it's mostly an irrelevance (where otherwise I'm sure it's detailed in their own article or an appropriate category exists). violet/riga (t) 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]