Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leregogy


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Leregogy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term appears to be a neologism coined by D. Rehorick, whose publications make up 90% of all that can be found about it. Although that was 25 years ago, there seems to have been minimal uptake outside the originators and their immediate workgroup members. I don't believe there's sufficient notability here for an article. Suggestions for redirect targets welcome - it's not really my subject area. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP: The article has been significantly updated for notability with support through broader references
 * POLICY: The article is still being developed and should not be deleted.
 * The presence of “leregogy” in Wikipedia makes this new conception visible to readers who access “andragogy” and “Malcolm Knowles” as central to the rise of adult learning theory. The initial entry is an abbreviated statement, and as a work in progress we will encourage other researchers to expand the posting. The link to “pedagogy” provides another connection to the broader notion of learning methods and learning theory.


 * While the neologism was coined some time ago at a Canadian university, interest and application has accelerated over the past eight to ten years at an American institution, The Fielding Graduate University. Usage is increasingly visible in doctoral dissertation research, and subsequent publications. The article has been updated to describe this usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salish Seas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Salish Seas (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Subject meets the sourcing requirements for notability of Wikipedia. REF: Category:Neologisms articles with topics of unclear notability "Please improve an article by adding references to reliable sources that verify content within the article, and add extra referenced content if appropriate. Once the article has references to at least two reliable sources that have significant coverage about the subject the Notability tag can be removed." The article was improved to present 18 principal and secondary references supporting notability.Salish Seas (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Article meets wiki notability critieria see REF Category:Neologisms articles with topics of unclear notability .."improve an article by adding references to reliable sources that verify content within the article, and add extra referenced content if appropriate. Once the article has references to at least two reliable sources that have significant coverage about the subject the Notability tag can be removed"  Article references have been expanded to include > 15 principal and secodary references - peer reviewed and books ... refer to the article.Salish Seas (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP. We do not publish neologisms, nor original research, nor academic arguments. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Leregogy: this is not original research; this is not an academic argument; neologism has broader reference in literature. Article has been updated to reflect broader use through extended references.Salish Seas (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Subject would require a lot better sourcing for a neologism than what one can see here. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: The Wikipedia entry on “neologism” accurately captures the intent of generating new words from previous ideas. When the limits of one area of inquiry are reached, knowledge development calls for a new orientation, one that encourages a fresh and new approach. In this regard, “leregogy” can be considered a “coined term” or “neologism”. It advances thinking beyond traditional limits of andragogy. This is how concepts evolve.

The Wikipedia entry reads: “Neologisms may take decades to become “old”, however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to lose its status as a neologism”. The concept of leregogy has been referenced increasingly over the past eight years. Having it stand as a Wikipedia entry will serve to draw more attention to the idea, especially from readers interested in andragogy, adult learning theory, and Malcolm Knowles, and pedagogy.

Editors have noted the need for “at least two reliable sources”. Are the references in the article “not reliable”? Human Studies: A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Sciences is a referred journal which has been in existence for 43 years. Publishing houses such as Routledge, and Lexington Books (a division of Rowman & Littlefield publishers) are well-known and reliable sources of knowledge and information. The Fielding University Press, more recently established, is anchored in a university with 45 years of history.Salish Seas (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what else happens with this article, it will require a thorough cleanup after the hectic name-dropping campaign waged by the author. Half of it currently consists of an extended plea of "look, our term totally is being used by people!", couched in plenty of sociological waffle. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT: Unfortunately the moderator's feedback" "Hectic name dropping", "plea", "sociological waffle" is not neutral and is not constructive. Wikki permits the development of articles while being considered for deletion ... if the term is being used by people then it is in use. COMMENT Wikki guidelines for neologisms cautions that usage does not necessarily have to have global use, but use within a community is acceptable. Academic terms might not appear in newspapers. Leregogy is a not andragogy or pedagogy as indicated in the article, thus its significance. In contrast to the feedback, the use of the term is identified through multiple references in the "Development and Application Section" of the article.Salish Seas (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Delete Looking it over this seems a lot like WP:OR and WP:TOOSOON. Especially the "Development and applications section." Which discusses original research done by teachers who use the term themselves. Which isn't peer reviewed secondary coverage of research on the concept. I don't feel that merging or redirecting would be appropriate though because the possible targets are different concepts. So, deleting it until a time when there is in secondary coverage to warrant the article seems like the best route to go with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. With good faith towards the author, from its very first sentence this reads as an attempt to promote the use of the neologism "leregogy", not document its use.  It's not a term in wide use.  Every Ghit seems to lead back to Rehorick in Vancouver, as do the cited sources here.  A search in newspapers.com comes up with absolutely nothing.  The page Andragogy has a more useful explanation of why new words might be helpful in describing peer-to-peer relationships in adult education.  --Lockley (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.