Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Hase

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 redirect to Heutagogy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Redirect per Mr. Stradivarius, given that he has changed his opinion (out of respect for which I did not nominate this a while ago). Please note that both articles are listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Stmullin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heutagogy, which looks likely to be kept. No independent notability, but I would remind our American friends that "professor" is a much more senior position here in Australia than it is in the United States. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep/delete? with GS h-index of 16. There may be room for one article but not for two. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

the h-index falls to about 12 if you remove self-citation by him and close associates. If we decide to keep one of the articles,and I think people are more likely to look for the term than the person, as the term will be encountered and not understood. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 21 April 2014 (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.