Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reason to think that this paper published in what seems to be a non-peer-reviewed journal is of any notability -- possibly qualifies as original research Accounting4Taste: talk 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable paper. If it is kept it needs to be stubbed as most of the article appears to be about the author rather than the article itself. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a point of view fork from Co-sleeping and as an article about a non-notable paper. Edison (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as the notability of the subject is not apparent. Put simply, this fails WP:N due to the lack of reliable independent sources that even mention the subject, let alone provide significant coverage.  In fact, I could find only a single reference to the article in a reliable source (here), and that merely cited the article - it did not offer detailed information about the article as a subject in its own right.  As a general rule, I would suggest that very few articles should have WP articles about them (with the possible exception of highly notable articles such as Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies); most articles simply aren't that notable in the grand scheme of things, and this magazine article is no exception.  Jakew (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. The subject of Co-sleeping is quite notable, and our article on the subject appears to be neutral and well-sourced. If this paper meets our reliable source policies, then we should include it there. But the paper itself isn't notable, and shouldn't have its own article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:46, 8 April 2010 (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.