Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process drama


 * 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 keep. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Process drama
No references. I'm not sure if it meets Notability with its lack of information. It is also an awkward topic and the article fails to clearly intrepert its basis, in my opinion. Delete. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep looks referenced to me; may have potential, let's give it some time. Tom Harrison Talk 04:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a legitimate topic (see e.g. ); article is extremely raw, but like Tom Harrison says, give it some time.   dbtfz talk 05:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work, but it's not OR. -- Vary | Talk 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup. -- Krash (Talk) 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nce Ong 10:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Krashlandon (e)  21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please the research is not original Yuckfoo 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep ["process drama" AND education] returns over 14,000 hits on google. This is definitely a legitimate and notable topic. Should be categorized as category:pedagogy. Needs reference list and wikification. Nesbit 13:15, 4 March 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.