Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delinquency among boys without mothers


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Delinquency among boys without mothers
Original Research maybe? --FlareNUKE 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete boys without mothers? I guess these delinquents sprang forth fully formed from the sea. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. I suspect they were right behind Athena but nobody noticed them, leading to feelings of inadequacy that, in turn, caused their delinquency.  JDoorj a m     Talk 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing vote per discussion below. JDoorj a m    Talk 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. J I P  | Talk 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems almost exactly the opposite of OR to me. The article gives a timeline of various scholarly studies with what seems to me to be a neutral voice, and gives multiple references at the bottom.  I would say the individual subsections should certainly be footnoted point by point, but otherwise this article seems to be an overview of other people's work, not original work by the article author.  Isn't that exactly what wikipedia asks for? -Markeer 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete Complete re-write and shorten to extract pertinant information and add to John Bowlby. Always wary of anything that starts Research suggests and Studies show as OR. Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Merge and delete" violates the GFDL. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? cheers Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite (perhaps even merge). The problem itself is encyclopedic and the article cites its sources.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with Bowlby, or else Delete. The article contains info on the research by Bowlby, a test done of the research of Bowlby, and a completely unrelated test (having nothing to do with delinquency!). So for the largest part this is an OR rendition of the reseach of Bowlby. Fram 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly OR, but it does not read like an article, but more like an essay of ideas. --Alex (Talk) 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the form of this article is not completely encyclopedic, but the article itself is interesting, it has a neutral tone, it is well referenced, and it pulls together stuff from many different places. If someone came forward who had a good plan for refactoring, I  wouldn't mind if this article disappeared and was merged into some more orderly article, but as it stands, it's worthwhile. EdJohnston 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepClearly notable and not OR. Research on this topic dating from Bowlby's post-WWII study of childhood separation and subsequent psuchological development has been in psych textbooks for decades. TDelinquency is a major issue in today's urban areas. It can benefit from judicious editing.Edison 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, requiring cleanup or Merge and redirect to Bowlby. JubalHarshaw 14:21, 11 October 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.