- 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chore chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article is not in wikipedia format and has no encyclopaedic importance at all. Also it is written like a guide. Irunongames • play 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. Needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic (pragraphs rather than to do lists), but the sources do cover this subject substantially (establishing notability). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The term itself is nothing more than a dictionary definition. The rest is a how-to guide for child raising. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The introduction is a long-winded dictionary definition. The remainder is an unsourced series of opinions about what tasks are suitable to give children of different ages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article needs nothing more than a more encyclopedic rounding, such as can be sourced from any of several references; it's obvious such references exist. Perhaps two months ago (early spring 2009), Money (magazine) had an article recommending age-appropriate chores. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up per ChildofMidnight. This is a valid topic which only needs references to make the article look good. Yoninah (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or vastly rewrite, it's written like a guide to a form of parenting which is completely subjective. If the topic is to stay, the lists of "chores for children aged 3 to 5" and so forth should go, but I'd give more weight to deleting than keeping. It's the kind of thing that'd fit better into a Wikibook or Wikia project. Esteffect (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - An AfD discussion is to judge the merit of the subject of the article, and whether or not it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not a judgement of how well-written an article is, that is a different process. It's clear that there is potential for this article even if there is a lot of work to be done, and the deletion nomination justification has only complained about the current state of the article. -- Atamachat 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel it is worth noting that I believe, per my delete vote, that both the state of the article and the topic itself should be removed; I do not believe a method of parenting is an encylopedic topic. Esteffect (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree with Esteffect, the topic is not encyclopaedic. An article discussing research about different parenting styles would be encyclopaedic, but how-tos and advice articles like this never can be, no matter how well written they are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems a valid and notable subject, just needs a cleanup.Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:34, 1 July 2009 (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.