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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Core Knowledge Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Search of books reveals 3 results; two of which are by the author of the concept. Search in news reveals zero results. Search in scholarly works reveals 3 results; one of which is by author of concept, the other two don't seem to give significant discussion to the term itself. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No third party sources in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terms that are specific to a single author shouldn't have their own article. It would be good if the original author contributes material to related articles (if that isn't happening already). MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Were this worth having an article about, Google Scholar ought to produce something; it yields nothing obviously about this particular elk theory. The idle may want to contemplate how this article's five core knowledge perspectives could be condensed to four or expanded to six or more. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Del per above --The.Filsouf (talk) 01:17, 12 December 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.