Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching as Leadership


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Teach For America. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Teaching as Leadership

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

no good sources. fails notability guidelines for books. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent sources. Maproom (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's got a review here, and it got cited in Malaysian sources . Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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 redirect to Teach for America... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to Teach 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., , . 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)
 * 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. &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @siroxo: may i ask where you got the number of citations? lettherebedarklight晚安 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this Google scholar page works? Also, WP:ACADEMIC has some caveats about Google scholar citation counts if you haven't seen it yet &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Are you able to see a "cited by " beneath the first result there? &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, yep.
 * but what does this have to do with the notability of a book? lettherebedarklight晚安 10:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Like, enough academics used this book in some capacity to their research that if we say its "not notable" we may be missing something.
 * Since we're discussing it I've dived in a bit more, and found a 340 word book review by Joey Estes in Childhood Education(Vol. 88, Issue 6), so there's one example of something that can turn up in a citation of a book. &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Teach for America per Visviva. Sal2100 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2023 (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.