Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuttering Hexagon

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 delete. After giving very little weight to the new accounts here that did not make arguments based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there is a consensus here that article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttering Hexagon[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Poorly-sourced promotional article lacks third-party sources or evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Sourced with primary sources, blogs, and an Amazon link. Google Scholar search shows little in the way of reliable third-party coverage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. From the talk page and history someone is being paid to edit this on WP which is completely unacceptable; other than that per nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Google scholar has "Developing a new paradigm for stuttering." listed as cited twice. While practitioners Bodenhamer and Margolina, and a couple of others, mention or use the hexagon, it has not caught on so as to meet the paradigm equivalent of WP:ACADEMIC#1. It is not a reason for deletion, but it is interesting that the Stuttering article, at the time I write this, did not mention the hexagon or J. Harrison. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article needs some work on the citing of the sources and editing but removing completely is a bit irrational. Maybe just tag it for improvement? Klokus (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Klokus (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Emilysantoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am adding notable Academic sources to the article. Stuttering Hexagon is a very important concept to the stuttering community and to individuals like me who stuttered severely until this concept changed my way of looking at stuttering. (Shaktisviolin (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)) — Shaktisviolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Due the the presence of WP:SPA accounts giving non-policy-based reasons to keep this paid article, it appears that there may be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting going on. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

° ′″Comment" shaktisviolin is the one who created this article and since this is my first article, that is why I am not an old-hand at this. I created this article, but then I asked for help with an edit because I didn't know it was against the rules or that I would be accused of sockpuppeting. I did not get the proper references on at first because I didn't understand the kind of references that were required. I am still not through with the reference page because all links aren't present yet but I think I'm getting the hang of it. Bear with me. Please??? (Shaktisviolin (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep In my opinion the page should be kept live for improvement. I found that two of the largest and most prestigious stuttering communities in the world (the British Stammering Association and the National Stuttering Association) support the Stuttering Hexagon. Both Harrison and Alan Badmington have delivered Keynotes to those conventions about the Stuttering Hexagon. There is no 'one' cure in the stuttering community, but only viable theories...and this is a viable theory that has been published and talked about in the stuttering community for 30 years.Hillysilly (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hillysilly (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment - There seem to be similar WP:SPAs in this AfD as were in Articles for deletion/Madison McKinley and which were suspected of being sockpuppets and an admitted paid editor. Whichever Admin closes this is advised to check that AfD... --Jersey92 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also, when the Keep support is from WP:SPAs, an editor who admits being paid on another article, and a strongly suspected sockpuppet one has to wonder if this (possibly promotional) article really can stand on its own two feet. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hereby declare that I am giving my concern against the deletion assuming good faith as per wikipedia guidlines. I found this page in the AFD List and thought I should give my concern after going through the page of Stuttering Hexagon. I would like to state that it should be given a chance for improvement on the basis of the following link. [http://bookzz.org/book/899940/70e2ec� Bookzz Org]

More in-depth research required. Editors are invited to edit the page to improve the quality and standards of the page as per wikipedia guidelines.Cristine nickol (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Delete The whole thing reads as if it were a case study. The tone violates WP:NPOV and the sourcing leaves much to be desired. Ish dar ian 06:26, 29 July 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.