- 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. Sandstein 08:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Circle time
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Circle time ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article reads like a non-notable essay. Contested prod. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is highly notable as the article lists numerous sources and a selection of books about the topic is listed below. The current state of the article seems reasonable and, in any case, any deficiences of style or substance are not a reason to delete per our policies WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Note also that the article has existed for over 12 years and has had numerous editors and thousands of readers. The recent attempts to delete the article seem to have been made without any discussion or engagement with the topic. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Quality Circle Time in the Primary Classroom: Your Essential Guide
- Developing Circle Time: Taking Circle Time Much Further
- Quality Circle Time in the Secondary School: A Handbook of Good Practice
- Circle Time for the Very Young: For Nursery, Reception and Key Stage 1 Children
- Circle Time for Adolescents
- Magic Circles: Self-Esteem for Everyone in Circle Time
- Circles, PSHE and Citizenship: Assessing the Value of Circle Time in Secondary School
- Math Activities for Circle Time
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep References already present in page, if cited less than ideally, are enough to establish clear notability. There's a lot wrong with this article but I don't see a compelling reason to TNT it in order to get something better. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep - Needs a substantial rewrite to be encyclopedic, but possibly passes WP:GNG if there's enough scientific documentation on it. I wouldn't be opposed to WP:TNTing it though, the current article reads like something off a parent/teacher info site. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 01:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep This article is much more pertinent than a lot of the nonsense that wikipedia has so much to say about, though I expect it is the type of topic where the people involved are not updating wikipedia and the people updating wikipedia are oblivious of. - Obviously it should not read like an advert. - It would be good to cite how pervasive the practice or equivalent terminology is in non-English speaking parts of the world. EE 88.111.90.165 ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- Per
Andrew Davidson's list of sources and many, many others in e.g.
this GScholar search. Further, nom fails to give valid deletion rationale. Claim that it reads like an essay shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how notability is judged. The fact is that the article could read like an essay written by a semi-literate third grader and it wouldn't mean a thing at AfD, where we evaluate articles based on the sources in the world rather than the lack of sources in the article in its present state per
WP:ARTN.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 19:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do know how notability is judged, thank you. Anyway, I wouldn't be against
Nathan2055's suggestion, but the article is in such terrible shape that it's difficult to tell if it really is a notable topic—and for the record,
Andrew Davidson, that the article
has been here for twelve years really isn't a valid !keep rationale. Erpert
blah, blah, blah... 03:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we don't delete articles for being in terrible shape. Not even for twelve years. We delete them if there are no existing sources in the world to establish notability. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 13:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do know how notability is judged, thank you. Anyway, I wouldn't be against
Nathan2055's suggestion, but the article is in such terrible shape that it's difficult to tell if it really is a notable topic—and for the record,
Andrew Davidson, that the article
has been here for twelve years really isn't a valid !keep rationale. Erpert
blah, blah, blah... 03:04, 20 November 2018 (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.