- 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Montessori-Based Dementia Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Therapy program developed by nn doctor and research institute (who, based on their website, appear to exist to sell training and products related to this program). Not affliated with any Montessori organisation. One self-sourced external link, two non-working external links. Article started as obvious cut-and-paste copyvio and is maintained and promulgated by a series of single purpose accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability provided. The article does not sound neutral, suggesting that someone with connected with the subject created the article (this is just a suggestion, I cannot back that up, other than by giving my interpretation of the text). Nevertheless, this article does not cite reliable or verifiable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article makes claims of notability in respect of various prizes. They are readily verified using Google. The references are pitifully inadequate and I question the validity of the technique, but there is in fact sufficient coverage (in AARP write-ups, etc.). Bongomatic (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me that these are notable awards, nor do the article's references link to them. The claim of notability is not verified. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 06:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this and this on Google Scholar. There are over 300 articles in the scientific literature, although this exact title seems to be a trademarked version of the method (which also has scientific publications). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that most, if not all, of the papers that turn up in the first search were authored by doctors from the aforementioned institute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It does appear notable enough. It is a well published method by the original finders/authors and the term is used in articles by other authors. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as PMID 10750318 on the subject has been cited 29 times, which is quite a high impact. citing articles Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (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.