Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Sigma Tennis


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Six Sigma Tennis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

At first glance this has sources, but they are: 1) Quality Digest, written by the same guy that came up with the Six Sigma Tennis concept, 2 and 3) Press releases via Prnewswire and 4), a blog. I've searched for more sources, and all I've come up with is more press releases and blogs. As it is it fails the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Painfully promotional prose, a catalog of dubious methodologies: ....has won international acclaim as a Solutions Expert, bringing together best practices from his hands-on business experience with ISO, Zero Defects, TQM, Six Sigma and The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award Program, in addition to his background and experience in Education, Entertainment, Law, Psychology and Sports.  Even if this business were notable this would require a complete rewrite. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete' - no coverage in reliable sources, and it's spam to boot. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I need more time to work on it. If you'll note in the original page discussion, I asked for assistance with this and never received any responses. The page meets basic general notability guidelines, just simply not at the level of quality defined by the initiator of this deletion discussion. I request sufficient time to find an expert to revise the page per the notes written here, so that it meets the highest possible level of quality standards for Wikipedia and its users. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. --Srfalk (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — Srfalk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reliable sources is your first step. Kuru   (talk)  15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could find no reliable third party resources; nothing but self-published blog entires and republished press releases.  The book itself is vanity press.  This just seems like a poorly crafted attempt to promote his product.  Kuru   (talk)  15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Kuru, above. The Forbes reference in the article is a press release, complete with contact details, obviously circulated quite widely.  A press release, clearly written by (or for) the organisation in question is essentialy a primary sources, even if it reproduced elsewhere.  Rreliable, independant sources need to be talking and writing about this topic if it is notable.  The fact is that there appear to be no such sources.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - I have taken initial steps per your suggestions; I will continue to revise according to your feedback. Thank you for your help. --Srfalk (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, those appear to be two links to blogs. Please read WP:RS then you get a chance. This is still an article about a self-published book with no reliable sources. I think waiting until sources appear or you publish something peer reviewed would be a better approach. We're not in a rush.  Kuru   (talk)  13:55, 4 August 2010 (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.