Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Kane

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Faith Kane}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faith_Kane Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Faith Kane}})

This biography seems to fail WP:NBIO and WP:PROF. Citations to her works are in single digit, no indication of significant impact on the field, major awards or other forms of recognition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Not the remotest chance of passing any category of WP:Prof. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC).
• Delete. I could find nothing to help get the page past WP:Prof. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)).

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep' editor of what appears to be a reasonably authoritative publication in her field, lectured internationally, also published. I think she can claim WP:Prof. NealeFamily (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

:*How can a publication with only 6 citations on Google scholar (including 2 self-citations) be described as reasonably authoritative? Hardly anybody has mentioned it. Xxanthippe (talk).

:*Hi, NealeFamily. "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". The "Average Professor Test: When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" WP:Prof. What evidence do we have of this? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)).

:*The subject is one of four editors of that journal, and nearly all academics have published, and most have lectured internationally (I've done the last two and I'm not even an academic). The standards of WP:PROF are higher than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

:*To add to this, Journal of Textile Design Research and Practice does not have an article (suggesting it is not notable). Not that it matters, but as a 2013 new journal it is doubtful to have had much impact, or be indexed much, so no, it is very unlikely she is an editor of a "reasonably authoritative publication in her field". Instead she is almost certainly an editor of a very new and not well known, authoritative or impactful publication in her field. In 10 more years this can change, like all the other parts of her bio which are now WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete low citiation shows does not meet academic note number 1. Not all journals are major, impactful ones that give notability to editors-in-chief.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as with most professors the article clearly passes WP:PROF which means it does not need to pass WP:GNG despite dubious notability with fewer than 10 sources. Sheldybett (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

:*Which category of WP:Prof does it pass? I can't see any. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

• Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete She only has a phD and is not a Professor hence the article fails the WP:PROF criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. She has made no outstanding breakthroughs in the field of textile and only published non-notable textbooks. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per the perfectly clear policy- and guideline-based consensus that was formed before this was relisted. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, but it seems that any opinion that doesn't have "keep" or "delete" in bold before it is discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Publications really amount to 3 chapters/sections in books. Per User:Phil Bridger et all. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.