- 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 speedy deleted as a G12 copyright infringement of dictionary.reference.com. I'm not sure how much unique phrasing there was, that would actually constitute as plagiarism of their words, but nonetheless it was a direct copy/paste. This AfD was beginning to snow, too, since the article was simply a dictionary definition. JamieS93 21:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Collimate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Dictionary-style definition, against WP:DICTIONARY Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Joe Chill (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete concur that this is just a dicdef. JJL (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per above... -Pax85 (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per nomination. —SlamDiego←T 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per nom. Tim Song (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (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.