Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academically Acceptable
- 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 redirect to Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system#Academically Acceptable. v/r - TP 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Academically Acceptable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is basically an A10 speedy candidate that, IMO, fails the "recently created" criterion. A redirect may be plausible. Tiderolls 06:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I overlooked linking to the existing topic: Academically Acceptable. Tiderolls 06:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability tag since September 2011 and being that the topic is already covered, with no references should be enough to warrant this article's fate. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICT. This is a generic term (except for the capitalisation) and therefore redirection to Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system is inappropriate. -- Trevj (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Texas Education Agency accountability ratings system#Academically Acceptable, redirects are cheap, it's a reasonable search term, why not? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect as above. I agree with User:Martijn Hoekstra that we're discussing a reasonable search term and since a suitable target exists, we shouldn't merely delete. BusterD (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as noted above. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect makes sense to me. Content is already duplicated in the Texas article. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:31, 13 March 2012 (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.