Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching as Leadership: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:06, 22 July 2023

Teaching as Leadership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

no good sources. fails notability guidelines for books. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources. Maproom (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep It's got a review here [1], and it got cited in Malaysian sources [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When one of your two article sources is Teach For America for a book published by the Chief Knowledge Office at Teach For America, you're in the weeds. WP:BEFORE shows more affiliate links than you can shake a stick at, but no evidence of depth of review or impact. An ATD would be a redirecttoTeach for America... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak mergetoTeach for America as a new L3 section, otherwise keep per Oaktree b. This does appear to have attracted roughly the bare minimum of coverage required by WP:NBOOK, namely having been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. More prevalent, though, seems to be coverage that talks about "Teaching as Leadership" as a philosophical framework of Teach for America, of which the book is merely a prominent representation, e.g. [3], [4], [5]. To my mind we would best serve the reader by following those sources, and having a section in the Teach for America article that discusses the TAL framework with reference to the TAL book. -- Visviva (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per sources uncovered plus 311 citations on Google scholar. Something is notable about this book. If that fully hinges on it's place in "Teach for America" and the framework of the same name, then merge seems fine. —siroχo 05:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @siroxo: may i ask where you got the number of citations? lettherebedarklight晚安 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hopefully this Google scholar page [6] works? Also, WP:ACADEMIC#Citation metrics has some caveats about Google scholar citation counts if you haven't seen it yet —siroχo 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  i haven't a clue what you're seeing, but i'm getting only 6 results. lettherebedarklight晚安 09:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you able to see a "cited by <number>" beneath the first result there? —siroχo 09:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  oh, yep.

  but what does this have to do with the notability of a book? lettherebedarklight晚安 10:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]