Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Problems in Childhood Cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. W.marsh 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning Problems in Childhood Cancer

Learning Problems in Childhood Cancer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Independent research, not an encyclopedia article. Nekohakase 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, i.e. WP:OR. Maybe a redirect target can be found. YechielMan 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment I am not seeing how this is original research. Seems that it refers frequently to external sources, and has an impressive list of references as well. Can you clarify how this is OR? There does seem to be good information here, that could be merged into another article, if this is slated for the junk heap. —Gaff ταλκ 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could easily be turned into an encyclopedia article. Maybe on a broader subject? "Effect of cancer on brain development" might be a good name for such an article. --- RockMFR 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a good journal article, not an encyclopedic one. That would be stating research, not a generalized view of a subject. Delete CitiCat 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Every encyclopedia article should be based on the research and publishings of outside sources. The only differences between an encyclopedia article and a journal article are perhaps the tone of the article and NPOV. Both are easy to deal with. --- RockMFR 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this material is better suited to be a source for more general articles. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this is necessarily original research. Several references are given as well as valid external resources. --† Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 06:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has problems, but they all look fixable. Cadr 08:20, 30 May 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.