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 keep. There is a consensus that this theory is notable since it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heutagogy[edit]

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

propaganda for a minor theory. see also the almost identical article under the inventor's name, Stewart Hase, nominated for deletion in the adjacent afd Almost all the works listed are from before the theory was developed. Of the 2 actual references, it is the title of one small chapter in ref.1, and is mentioned once in ref. 2. This concept has been carefully worked into a number of other WP{ articles, as if to give the impression that it is something important. Possibly one oft he article could be kept, but trying to get 2 articles on a very minor topic is one the the most common promotional techniques here: excessive coverage is promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this article. It was covered in secondary sources independent of the creators (Although certainly better ones would be .um. better.) . I will be !voting delete on the other article. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a minor theory, but it has received third-party coverage. See [1] and [2]. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've argued for the notability of this article before in this post, and that argument still stands, although I have changed my mind about the bio article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage in secondary sources. Also, FWIW it's common enough in the curricula of pedagogical programs that I've seen to convince me it's not a fringe theory. Can't speak for the notability of its creators, but the concept, to my eye, passes. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This concept is now being covered at professional education conferences. Various searches through article databases shows expanding coverage in the literature. If it is a viable epistemology, there should be references to the idea from before the theory was developed. This would actually lend proof that the creators are on to a real idea and didn't just make up a new idea for attention. - grandeped (talk) 016:19, 25 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.