Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEACCH

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 of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEACCH[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability, and is only an explaination of the acronym. From Googling I gather that this is a North Carolina organization only. [1] It might be notable, but the article has no content. Delete unless improvements are made. Change vote to keep upon comment by Daniel Case that topic is notable, and improvements made by JJay. --Fang Aili 15:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Jcuk 17:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This approach is used very widely with autistic children. Article should make that clear. I don't have time right now. Daniel Case 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 02:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do we keep articles that have no content? According to WIKI:STUB (which I realize is a guideline and not policy), states, "A stub is an article that's obviously too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." This article, in its current state, does not satisfy those criteria. --Fang Aili 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Expanding an article is really not too difficult. I added a few lines from the link you provided at the top of this page. I'm sure you could have improved the article on your own, but please feel free to add more info now. -- JJay 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. And you can be "sure" of whatever you want, but I know nothing of autism or autism therapy and did not feel comfortable adding to this article. My concern is that people come to Wikipedia for information, and if they arrived at this article such as it was when I nominated it, they would think, "Wow, that was stupid. I'm never using Wikipedia again." This is why I said to delete unless improvements are made. Thank you for adding the appropriate information to avoid that. I'm still not sure if the topic is notable, but most people in the wiki community probably lack the expertise to make such a determination. --Fang Aili 15:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for withdrawing your nom. I'm not an expert on autism, I merely took some info from your link. Your point about visitors to wikipedia is well taken, but my concern is more about not driving away contributors who might be able to improve the contents or add expertise, starting with the many tens of thousands of stubs. You never know when the odd visitor is going to see a stub, think "wow, that was stupid", and then spend the rest of their day improving the article. I hope some of those people will be able to bring substantial improvements to the TEACHH article in the future.-- JJay 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If TEACCH really is a widely used approach, then edit the article on autism to reflect that. Endomion 14:22, 23 December 2005 (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.