- Stuttering Hexagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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)
- 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.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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)