Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reference point

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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a dictionary definition, and has apparently been transwikied over to wikitionary already. This was PROD'ed but contested. Note that the PROD was placed on an earlier version of the article with very little text. The editor contesting the PROD restored material deleted in an earlier edit, but despite the additional text, it still remains a dictionary definition. Whpq (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. It is indeed already over at Wiktionary. Isn't Speedy deletion criteria A5 for this specific case? Ray Yang (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Please: I'ts "criterion A5", not "criteria A5". The latter is plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For A5 to apply an AFD discussion has to have already resolved to transwiki the article, unless it is a bare dictionary definition. This has a few lines of expansion to it and is not eligible for speedy deletion. Keep as good, encyclopedic article with potential. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Anything which begins "a reference point is a tool" is not long on potential, and this appears to be in the addition Stifle mentions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 15 July 2008 (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.