Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age appropriateness
Subject of https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14&q=%22age+appropriateness%22&btnG= extensive scholarly analysis (> 12000 Google Scholar hits, many of which appear to involve detailed and substantive analysis of the concept). To be sure, the state of this article not great.  In that respect, it's symptomatic of the pathetic state of Wikipedia's coverage of education (and the "soft" social sciences in general), which of course is the result of Wikipedia's unfortunate success in driving away so many good-faith content creators away. (Another factor is, of course, how badly we handle these fields in which concepts, terms and definitions are themselves in constant dispute, in ways that don't allow one to sort coverage neatly into piles marked "concept" and "word" as guidelines like  presume -- a failing that is both a cause and effect of the lack of knowledgeable editors in these fields -- but probably not directly applicable here, since there seems to be plenty of Wikipedia-friendly scholarship available.) It's certainly possible that in the future when Wikipedia's coverage has become less pathetic, a consensus might be reached through the wiki process to address this subject under some broader topic within the field of education. But in the meantime, putting articles up for deletion because they aren't already good enough isn't going to improve things, and is not an appropriate use of the deletion process
— User:Visviva, 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:WORDISSUBJECT (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)