Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stepladder technique

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 on a notability level, without prejudice to the resolution of copyright issues -- Y not? 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stepladder technique

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

Deprodded with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL rationales. While there are sources, I see no way this can be anything more than a dicdef and OR. The only sources I found used the term in passing at best. Google gives only 295 unique results; between this and the fact that the article has been orphaned since 2006, it's clear that this is not a very notable, widespread term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - this pedagogy technique is used in the classroom. I'm sure there's easily accessible scholarship on the topic. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be useful and valid subject worthy of note; moving away from Rogelburg's for secondary sources needs to be done, but the problems are fixable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Basically per the nominator of the article: there are sources, and this is all we need to keep the article. AfD is not cleanup. This thing needs improvement, not deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement with what? As I said, there are sources, but all they do is give a WP:DICDEF. Tell me how this is not just a dictionary entry, or how it's supposedly so damn notable if it's had zero incoming links since 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we suddenly need incoming links for notability? I may have missed something about the notability guidelines? About the sources, I see four academic papers listed: I can't access them, but it seems fairly obvious it can be expanded if you have access to these. And the article is much longer than a dicdef already. Are we reading the same article? --Cyclopia ^talk 09:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also your googling skills seem to be surprisingly lacking. Here is a full PDF of an academic paper on the subject. So much for "dicdef". It took me literally 10 seconds to find it (first result on Gscholar). Are you kidding me? WP:AGF has limits. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am on the fence as far as notoriety, since the works cited are not very influential and no other work in the Scholar search or similar searches does better. On the other hand, this article has a serious WP:COPYVIO problem. For instance, the paragraph that starts with "Performance gains associated with the stepladder technique have been documented..." is straight out of page 995 of the Rogelberg et al. (2002) paper. I also have to wonder about the licensing claim supporting Figure 1, since that figure is essentially a copy of Figure 1, page 83 in the Rogelberg and O'Conner (1998) paper, which states "Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing Foundation". Hopefully a more experienced editor can advise how to proceed. But, as far as this AfD, once the copyvio is taken care of I wonder how much of an article will be left.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I posted at [the Copyright Problems talk page] to elicit advice on how to deal with the copyvio while the article is under AfD consideration.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (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.