Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Hase

Stewart Hase

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

Inventor of a very minor theory--see the adjacent AfD for heutagogy. much of the material is identical in the two articles. Of the 3 refs, 2 are his own works, the 3rd is an unrefereed conference paper. His own single significant book, listed here, is merely in 62 libraries according to worldcat---utter insignificance for a work in a major subject field.

As far as I can tell, he is currently not professor anywhere; his highest rank was Associate Professor in a minor university. Trying to get two articles -- one of the person and one on the person;'s theory , when they are each of very borderline importance, is a standard promotional technique--it always calls for careful checking. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Two articles is excessive - the concept may have gained some traction. I !voted weak keep there, but the guy does not pass GNG or ACADEMIC. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gaijin, no individual notability. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heutagogy. I previously argued for this article to be kept in this discussion (which I recommend the other participants read, as it is directly relevant), but on reviewing the article again I have changed my mind. While WP:PROF says "criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea ... in their academic discipline", I concede DGG's point about the significance of the concept of heutagogy, given the WorldCat listings. Also, there doesn't seem to be any significant sourceable information that isn't already covered in the heutagogy article, meaning it would be hard to write a biography that didn't significantly duplicate the heutagogy article. I think that heutagogy passes WP:GNG, and if that article is kept I think that keeping this page as a redirect would be more useful than deleting it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]