Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Jewitt

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Jewitt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The page has a lot of minutiae that don't add up to notability. As to WP:GNG, I don't see multiple meaningful references in reliable sources. As to WP:PROF, I don't see the 8 criteria under WP:NACADEMIC being met -- per that page, "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" Dr. Jewitt has quite a long list of activities (from ESL teacher to prison educator) but no indication that any of the awards are particularly meaningful (e.g., nominated for an "Inspire Women" award but did not win; nominated as "one to watch" in a book that does not seem to be a reliable source; etc) or that she has had an outsized impact in her field. I'd love to be wrong about this one, but it feels like a bunch of non-WP:RS stacked up. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost seems run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient independent and reliable coverage to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:AUTHOR, as well as a lack of support for WP:NPROF at this time, per the nom and based on what I have been able to find online and at the WP Library. Beccaynr (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An h-index of 3 in education is extraordinarily low. Refs 1-17 are not independent. Refs 18-38 are for various minor awards, not major ones. She's only four years out of her PhD - it would be very strange for her to be able to pass WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not remotely meet WP:NPROF, which is unsurprising as she's an early-stage academic. There's very little WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Beccaynr. Unfortunately being "well-intentioned" does not meet GNG. Possibly is WP:TOOSOON but there is no inherent notability in her current positions so needs to meet GNG or WP:PROF, and does not seem to. Cabrils (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (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.