Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relaxation labelling


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Relaxation labelling

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page has been an orphan since November 2006. Also, this page never cited any references. Also, the page may have been copied from this page. In addition, the user who made the article made only one contribution to Wikipedia. The possible intention of the user was to probably make this article, which there is no need. — JC  Talk to me My contributions 10:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the page is an absolute mess but the topic seems notable from even a cursory glance at the google or scholar search results. The problem is it's a fairly obscure topic, certainly one I know nothing of, so needs some specialist attention.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a good example of a page that should be improved rather than deleted as there are a ton of hits for this in Google Books and it is a complicated topic. I stubbed the article, added some sources to further reading, and flagged it for rescue. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google Books results prove it is a real thing, and that it gets coverage. Most of the article was removed.   Someone familiar with this topic could perhaps determine what should be in it.   D r e a m Focus  20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed most of the content as a copyright violation, but that was after the Afd had started. I'd try to build it back up with the sources, but this is a bit outside my area of expertise. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - The nomination doesn't advance any specific rationale for deletion based upon a lack of available reliable sources to disqualify topic notability. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not they're present in articles. Copy violations were removed per User:Mark Arsten's comment above. Orphan status does not equate as a valid reason to delete. The number of edits a user made, or a single-purpose type account aren't reasons to delete. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I added an academic reference to the article:
 * (Full text: )
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing nomination, as per discussion. I agree with the fact that the page was a copyright violation, but I haven't taken into consideration of searching up this article. — JC  Talk to me My contributions 01:24, 4 January 2012 (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.