- 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 keep. Most keep votes were weak but consensus appears that subject passes WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) Ifnord ( talk) 01:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Jennifer R. Mandel
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jennifer R. Mandel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only thing potentially notable about her is the "seminal discovery" that I can only find coverage of in a puff piece by her university. Beyond lack of notability, there's not enough material available to write an article. Natureium ( talk) 18:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 19:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 19:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 19:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I've removed that bit of puffery, which was indeed inappropriate, and not a substantive claim to notability. However, her list of publications provides a stronger claim; a methodological paper on which she was the first author has been cited 500+ times, which is considerable impact for a person who has been a professor for four years. As such, I think she meets criterion 1 of NPROF, although I acknowledge that it isn't a slam-dunk case. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Vanamonde. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Vanamonde. Thsmi002 ( talk) 21:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Vanamonde. Guettarda ( talk) 15:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Vanamonde. Or, draftify until notability can be more fully assessed -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.