Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kindergarten readiness

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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten readiness

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be one of a bunch of research papers produced by McGill doctoral students and dumped on the Wiki contrary to WP:5P1, It is not ... a collection of source documents. WP:OR & WP:NOTESSAY apply. The article was twice deleted as a G10 rework of Kindergarten & the third G10 nomination on the same day declined. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it certainly could use some trimming down, but it is not horrid. I'd be willing to take this project on after I finish my student teaching this summer. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the A10, because Kindergarten talks only about the educational approach in various countries, and very little about the actual educational content and student development, which is what this article talks about. It's certainly not written encyclopedically (more an essay/instructional guide for parents), but it's not bad enough for TNT. The subject is clearly notable, including being discussed in government studies. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the concept is notable, and the article is good enough quality to keep. Barely. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.