Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price Waterfall

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. I don't mind recreation if this article can be expanded. Sr13 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price Waterfall

Price Waterfall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

challenged prod; possible neologism; (in retrospect also suspcious about hoax -- "Waterfall" vs "Waterhouse" Simon Cursitor 07:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This term does not meet the wikipedia notability guidlines.--†Sir James Paul† 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't a hoax, but it isn't very important either. Without a fuller discussion of business pricing strategies and accounting thereof this would pretty much remain an orphan. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Unsourced dicdef, possible neologism, negligible google hits. If anyone could expand it and source it I'd be more likely to sway towards keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment From a usefullness standpoint, I would much prefer that Wikipedia get a good article on pricing first. This alone is like having addition without an article on mathematics. In general real academic business-school content is lacking on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 27 June 2007 (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.