Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Hammer
Let's go back to basics. The  requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where ''significant'' is a source that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content ... more than a trivial mention" and "multiple sources are generally expected". I've reviewed the sources added by {{u|E.M.Gregory}} and of the independent sources only one includes non-trivial coverage https://killscreen.com/articles/ethiopia-one-game-design-professor-believes-young-girls-hold-key/ – and I'm not sure whether "killscreen.com" is a |reliable source. Yes, Hammer has been mentioned in the press, but literally only ''mentioned'': a single quote in article about an entirely different subject, or an article about a summer camp where the kids say she's their favourite teacher. I'm afraid this fits a pattern I've been noticing at a lot of recent AfDs: {{u|E.M.Gregory}} will type the subject's name into ProQuest and |refbomb the article with any and every hit. I've had to remove a number of references where there is absolutely no indication that the "Jessica Hammer" mentioned (e.g. as winning a school science contest in 1994) is the person covered in the article. But unless I'm way off in my understanding of , significant coverage in ''one source'' of dubious reliability and a scattering of ''trivial mentions'' in other sources comes nowhere near to passing the bar. And with regards to , I agree with the consensus that while Hammer is definitely on track to being a notable academic, it's  for her to have made the "significant impact" required by #C1 and she's too junior to meet any of the other criteria. &ndash;&#8239
— User:Joe, 11:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:REFBOMB||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)