Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early childhood development


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 07:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Early childhood development

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is original research (probably an essay), non-referenced and inaccurate. Mendors 09:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The intro sentence even admits that it's an essay and OR... Spazure 09:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. Concept is definitely encyclopedic, but current article is clearly original research.  Blueboy96 12:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait The article is only hours old with a single entry, no actual edits to the article itself other than tags. The article also end with the following statement:
 * This article is in the process of editing
 * This seems rather unfair. Give the article a chance, if it does not improve, then delete it. Dbiel (Talk) 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, it's written in a totally essay-like form, and it's WP:OR, so it should be either rewritten from scratch or totally deleted. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But don't forget:
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|]] I noticed the message you recently left to . Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it.
 * It is true that this template does not fit, but from the point of a new user, having one's hard work deleted would seem just as bad or worse. Lets provide help rather than censorship. Dbiel (Talk) 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:OR.  We should judge the article based on its contents now and not what it might be in the future Corpx 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Userify to allow the author to complete construction of the article. I'd note that this is a new account and the article hasn't existed for long, either.  --Tim4christ17 talk 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An unsourced essay which would need restarting from scratch to fit into the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 23:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally I have no objection to userfication, but this article is an entirely original essay.  No amount of editing will produce a verifiable work without starting with a complete blanking of the article.  Someguy1221 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oof. Completely unsourced as it stands, and written in a completely unencyclopedic manner. I think userfy it to give the author a chance to read the manual of style and rewrite it into an encyclopedic piece, if possible. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I fear the userify option might encourage the editor to resubmit an inappropriate article to mainspace. Espresso Addict 16:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article is not owned by the creator. It is a great topic, it just needs fixing.  Lots of sources exist out there, whole textbooks and web sites. Bearian 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several existing articles on overlapping topics, though. Espresso Addict 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Rewrite: As it appears currently the article must be deleted per WP:OR. However the subject obviously deserves an article, so if someone rewrite it, it will deserve keeping. Dan Gluck 05:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator as an essay based on original research without prejudice against creation of something better based on reliable sources down the road. Burntsauce 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs a complete rewrite, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. --Android Mouse 18:43, 20 July 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.