Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disarray
- 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. Nja247 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Disarray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Dictionary definition. Non-encyclopaedic. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Plain and simple dicdef; already covered in Wiktionary. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Agreed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I can't think of any content for the word "Disarray" that would warrant expanding the article or that would make it noteworthy. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Cnilep (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It looks like a cut-and-paste copyvio, too, but I can't find the source. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a list of word definitions. $50 says its a copyvio. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Timmeh! 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. Wikipedia doesn't handle dictionary entries. tempodivalse [☎] 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong delete per WP:DICDEF ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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.