Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equidistant


 * 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 keep. Page soft-redirected to Wiktionary - see Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Equidistant

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The page is entirely nonsense and the title is not a suitable one for an article. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Close This issue is already up with redirects for deletion: Redirects_for_discussion --DeVerm (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm surprised to see someone saying that the article titled distance doesn't say anything about this. That does not follow from the mere absence of the exact word equidistant. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to distance. By hindsight I think I should have simply changed it back to a redirect to distance.  At the time I proposed this deletion, I hadn't yet noticed that it formerly redirected there.  It appeared on the math Wikiproject's "current activities" page as a new article, I presume because someone put a mathematics category tag on it.  Perhaps this should be a "speedy".  I'm not altogether sure of the rules concerning those.  It says "equidistant" is a past-tense verb.  Any fool knows that it's an adjective.  The remarks about geometry are silly nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2011 (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.