Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Kinsella

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. KTC (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kinsella[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of somewhere around 10 in a well-cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP Kinsella's work has, I admit, been surprisingly little cited in the scholarly press, but the wide adoption of her theories and practices (including their impact on the creation of Common Core suggests to me that she is important. Working in education, it's hard to pass very long without someone citing her. She's widely taught in education programs. Her work in teaching vocabulary is globally influential. I'm sorry I'm not grabbing sources right now, but, well, you know. Honestly, that her article is still so short after two years says more about the number of K-12 educators who edit Wikipedia than I cared to learn. Thmazing (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well but Wikipedia needs verifiable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry. Not a good time for me to engage in a discussion like this. Here are a couple thoughts on where to start looking. "kate+kinsella"+syllabus&oq="kate+kinsella"+syllabus&aqs=chrome..69i57.7069j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=kate+kinsella+syllabus&safe=off 1, 2, 3. Sorry for not being here more. A couple weeks ago and I would have already rewritten the article! Thmazing (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also could find very little. As a matter of fact, a number of GS cites do not actually belong to this person, but to someone else of the same name at Dana–Farber Cancer Institute. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of documented evidence of the impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. It doesn't have to be citations from other academic papers — but if she really is influential and widely taught, then we need reliable sources that show it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's an adjunct, not even a F/T teacher. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 November 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.