Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Use and Child Sleep: The Impact of Content, Timing, and Environment


 * 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. czar 02:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Media Use and Child Sleep: The Impact of Content, Timing, and Environment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a notable academic article; none of the researchers have Wikipedia articles. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. CSD (A1) was declined as the subject of the article was clear. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I declined the speedy, as A1 does not seem to apply (the subject is clear) and I saw no clear reason for speedy deletion. However although Pediatrics is a respectable journal, I do not see any particular reason why this paper merits an article. Google Scholar gives its citations as 62, which does not seem all that high for such a heavily studied topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best for now as this seems like a journal report instead of a formal encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into Sleep as a reference in section Sleep.  Agree the article on an article does not seem any more notable than millions of other articles with no wikipedia article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, without any ref-merge (there are thousands of similar articles, so using this would be justified only for an inline ref supporting a specific claim - which one?). The only plausible CSD would be WP:G11 but I do not quite see it.
 * No secondary sources, no significant measurable impact, etc. And if you want my opinion, the "blue light disrupts melatonin cycles" thing is highly suspicious. Tigraan (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2016 (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.