Deletion of Circle time

Comment: Per {{u|Andrew Davidson}}'s list of sources and many, many others in e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22circle+time%22&btnG= this GScholar search.  Further, nom fails to give valid deletion rationale. Claim that it reads like an essay shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how notability is judged.  The fact is that the article could read like an essay written by a semi-literate third grader and it wouldn't mean a thing at AfD, where we evaluate articles based on the sources in the world rather than the lack of sources in the article in its present state per . Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTN)

Comment: Needs a ''substantial'' rewrite to be encyclopedic, but possibly passes  if there's enough scientific documentation on it. I wouldn't be opposed to ing it though, the current article reads like something off a parent/teacher info site
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TNT)

Comment: The topic is highly notable as the article lists numerous sources and a selection of books about the topic is listed below.  The current state of the article seems reasonable and, in any case, any deficiences of style or substance are not a reason to delete per our policies , , ,  and .  Note also that the article has existed for over 12 years and has had numerous editors and thousands of readers.  The recent attempts to delete the article seem to have been made without any discussion or engagement with the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE||WP:BITE||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:PRESERVE)