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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Home-based program

[edit]

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

This "article" was nowhere close to being ready for articlespace when it was in AFC. The editor appears to have attempted to bypass AFC by copy/pasting from the AFC holding bin. It still appears to be non-compliant as an article as of yet. Needs significant work to meet our WP:MOS if it even can meet our basic standards ES &L 15:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with ES&L this article definitely need more work before going on the main space.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator please be more specific as to precisely what is wrong with this article. Could the problems be dealt with by editing and merging page histories? "Not ready" sounds like "imperfect". James500 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as I don't see an actual policy-based rationale for deletion here; nothing mentioned as problems that can't be fixed by editing like the MOS. Courcelles 23:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly needs clean-up but notability is clear and well established. Maybe it shouldn't have passed AFC, but using the AFC process is optional, and the reasons given are no reason to delete. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keepon grounds that no valid rationale for deletion has been offered. AfD isn't cleanup. James500 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2013 (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.