- 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. Eluchil404 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. TexasAndroid 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:DICDEF and the original ProD. EyeSereneTALK 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article doesn't add enough to be more than a simple definition, per WP:DICDEF. Pharmboy 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since the article provides no context past the definition of the term in the title, delete as per WP:WINAD --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For somewhat more than a month, someone checking the Wikipedia for videogram got at least a somewhat useful answer. Now they won't. Even worse, even if they knew about the wiktionary and checked there, too, they wouldn't find the transwikied version because it's at Transwiki:Videogram. The English WP itself has some two dozen articles using that word, but we'd rather leave people in the dark about its meaning because of WP:DICDEF!? – I've given up on using the transwiki templates a long time ago because the process is broken, and I totally fail to see how it helps us making a better, more useful encyclopedia. [I am the author of videogram, but I don't care much for the article itself.] Rl 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and poor coverage in other media is not a reason for inclusion. Nuttah68 09:30, 12 August 2007 (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.