Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RSDRF

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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSDRF

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I simply don't understand what this article is doing here. Speedy and Prod declined. This is an utterly trivial fee paid by students at a school so non-notable that the school itself has no wiki entry. It's also clearly a cut and paste copyright violation, although I can't find a page with the exact text. Delete, delete, delete. Hairhorn (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the lead are a close copy of this page, not sure if that's enough for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through the sole reference and finally managed to understand what this page is trying to do - explain what one particular institute does to collect statistical data. Fails notability criteria for the term, so apply common sense and do an early snow close. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Snow etc. Goochelaar (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a piece of administrative bureaucracy at one particular college. It is of no general interest and is not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed the speedy delete tag, not because I thought the article belonged, but because it was tagged as an A1 and there was plenty of info to identify the subject of the article. After looking i was going to add a PROD tag, but it was already Prod'd. This article does not belong and snow closed. --A new name 2008 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the speedy nom wasn't perfect, I understand why it was declined. But - rightly or wrongly - CSDs often get stretched to fit blatantly unsuitable articles. G1 is probably the most liberally interpreted. Hairhorn (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not wanting to pile on, but the topic is not encyclopaedic. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's good to have this post. I heard about this and couldn't find an explanation. good page. let it be 64.71.16.202 (talk)

Comment copied here from article talk page by Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic. Astronaut (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete No reliable sources to verify that this process is in any way, shape or form recognized or discussed as something specific, unique or remarkable (in particular since the school it belongs to hasn't passed the WP:GNG itself so far).MLauba (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The copyvio / close paraphrase as well as most of the non-encyclopedic material has been removed pending AfD closure. MLauba (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: A non-notable fee. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2009 (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.