Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degree audit

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 of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:46, 19 February 2006

[edit] Degree audit

Perhaps an interesting topic, but it's just copied from this source James Kendall [talk] 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio, and dictionary definition type article. --Jay(Reply) 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef that wasn't worth the bother of copying. -- Mithent 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn dicdef Avi 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. Blnguyen 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, copyvio. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{copyvio}}, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Couldn't the copyright problems process take care of this? — RJH
• No need to send it to WP:CP, just speedy delete as a copyvio. Stifle 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Stifle Ruby 01:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been asserted that the website it originates from is not a commercial content provider, i.e. that there is a possible chance that permission will be granted. Therefore the article has been sent to WP:CP. Stifle 11:51, 15 February 2006 (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.