Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle childhood


 * 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. --Core desat 00:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Middle childhood

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article created by Preteen vandal who also insists that 18-20 is a child (leftover belief before the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Mr. Comedian must be from a different country where no similar amendment has been passed. Georgia guy 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so why on Earth did you convert it to AfD from db-nonsense?  Pyrop e  22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to request deletion; simply a speedy delete might be objected too quickly. Georgia guy 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You think AfD is a swifter process than db??  Pyrop e  22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to know if anyone besides Mr. Comedian votes for this page to be kept. Georgia guy 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As it stands, this page is utter tripe. So you are wanting to know if anyone wants to keep the title in circulation? Pointless. In that case, if there really is any merit in the entire concept (which is seriously doubtful, but anyway), the page can easily be recreated with some meaningful content. Why preserve garbage?  Pyrop e  22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Rambles too much, doesn't give much information. =O.o= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Author has a list of links to other stages, including "teenhood". There was a daycare center in Lexington, KY, that was actually called the "Early Lifehood Center".  As for teenhood, a teenhood is likely to steal your purse.  Mandsford 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This clearly does not fall under CSD G1 (nonsense), since that criterion "does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort." It clearly fails WP:OR and WP:V, though, and a snowball delete seems a definite possibility. Deor 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Deor. Not technically a speedy delete candidate. Bearian 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced original research. Maybe taginf with PROD first might have been better but this does not meet any criteria for a WP:SPEEDY -- Whpq 18:43, 26 September 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.