Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiness in children


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Happiness in children

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It violates WP:NOTESSAY. Lil Johnny (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: This is part of a student's assignment for Wikipedia and it looks like they started this in the mainspace instead of their userbox, so it's still a work in progress. Could the student take this back into their userspace so they can work on the issues of notability and essay-esque content? I figure that they can either work on it until it could merit its own article or perhaps see if they can merge it into somewhere else. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, if improved. If Hapiness can be an article, so can "Happiness in children" which is a subset of happiness. Based on what I saw, the students should be able to improve the article - especially with the help of their teacher. The article was not totally awful. Knox490 (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keep, per knox490 2.101.52.59 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Holder & Klass 2010 cite an ample literature on this, establishing WP:GNG, and the fact that this RS is cited (along with several others) in the article is a good sign that the article does not need WP:TNT and is on track to be acceptable. FourViolas (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2017 (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.