Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer O. Manilay

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer O. Manilay[edit]

[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)

Non-notable academic. Search finds nothing even close to satisfying WP:GNG, and I cannot see anything in here to show WP:NACADEMIC notability either. A single close and primary source cited, and a Google profile which shows an h-index of 16. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the many prongs for academic notability and we do not have anything that is even remotely close to showing a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with John Pack Lambert above. CT55555 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything that would indicate notability in terms of WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Pretty run of the mill for a full professor and not much for secondary source mention. Even their citation indices for papers are pretty normal, and we can't really use those as a standalone for notability anyways. KoA (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person here is not notable and the sources provided are not sufficient for providing reliability as per GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she has an h-index of 15,[1] so not particularly high. She may become more notable later, but now is not that time. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that she is the Department Chair of Molecular and Cell Biology. Being chair is more than routine. However, and I hope this isn't snobby, I don't find UC Merced to meet the criterion of "a major institution of higher education and research", as required by WP:NPROF. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence for that (besides her own LinkedIn profile)? Also, I'm no expert, but AFAIK dept chair is mainly an admin role; I agree it's "more than routine", but how much more, and is that enough to make the post-holder inherently notable? I would argue not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Long precedent makes clear that being a department chair is, on its own, inadequate for automatic academic notability. Department chairs are not the kind of named chair given to individuals to honor their distinguished scholarship and recognized by WP:PROF#C5, nor are they the head of an entire university or major scholarly society, recognized by #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 10 March 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.