Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundations and Evaluation: Contexts and Practices for Effective Philanthropy

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations and Evaluation: Contexts and Practices for Effective Philanthropy[edit]

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

Non-notable textbook. Somewhat promotional tone, no independent references provided. --Finngall ^talk 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Notability (books). No reliable sources could be established. Tinton5 (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Cited by 35 according to Google Scholar. How does that measure up with respect to WP:TEXTBOOKS? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a review. If the citations are like this one, which specifically highlights the book, then that could probably be argued as a sign of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 I looked at that link. It's to an essay in the book that is co-authored by one of the editors of the book. That's not insignificant, but it's also not the book itself. And personally I don't find 35 cites a large number -- at least, not large enough for this book to rise to WP status. There are undoubtedly hundreds if not thousands of textbooks or books of academic essays with that many cites. I'm not getting notability vibes off of this one. Delete LaMona (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another textbook without wider impact or recognition. Renata (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree w/above. Neutrality^talk 16:27, 28 April 2015 (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.