Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parenting practices

Parenting practices

Appears to be OR Essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the article is sourced, concur with nom. that it appears to largely be an essay on a theory of Annette Lareau. JJL (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is well-written, but right now it seems to be an essay explaining a particular point of view. Although I am voting "weak delete" at this time, I am also tagging it for possible "rescue." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a howto-guide. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Parenting practices and social stratification in the United States and keep. This is not "original research" by our definition; the views expressed in the page are a synopsis of published research by an authority in the field. I don't see how this is a how-to guide at all. As noted above, the article is quite readable and clear, and is otherwise an excellent contribution. The problem is that the title "parenting practices" gives rise to an expectation of a general article about parenting, with a worldwide perspective: and this article is not that. Moving this to a title that actually describes its content fixes that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition of original research to a large extent includes synopsis. See WP:SYN. I have not examined the article, nor the cited papers, so I do not know if this applies in the current case. Taemyr (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. Perhaps "synopsis" was a poor choice of words. But the link you cited refers to synthesis serving to establish a position, i.e. the editor's position; while in the article in question, the positions taken seem to be properly credited to the researcher herself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move. I realize that I am bias because I am the author of the article. I also understand that it could sound like an essay, as it was part of a project for a class. However, I think that it is clear, well written, unbiased, and a good contribution to Wikipedia. It is based on books and articles (cited) by respected authors in the field and provides valuable information, making it valuable to be on Wikipedia. I also agree that that the title may be misleading. This was one of the main concerns when I first began working on the page (this can be seen on my talk page User talk:Ddk977x2). The title may be misleading and I support it being moved, but it does not need to be deleted.Daniel (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you have a suggestion for a new name? If good info. can be retained, that's always beneficial. JJL (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]