Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer R. Niebyl

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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer R. Niebyl

[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)

WP:BLP of a physician and medical writer, not properly sourced to any evidence that she passes our notability standards for physicians or writers. As always, the notability test for people is not just the ability to nominally verify that they and their work exist, but the references here are exclusively to her own primary source profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, however, what she needs is reliable source coverage in media sources that are independent of her, which haven't been shown here at all — people get Wikipedia articles by having media do journalism about them, not by having staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)" as an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, formerly the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, as stated in the article. She would also meet other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, but she only needs one. I have found and added a biography published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as part of their Giants in Obstetrics and Gynecology Series. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF as argued above. (I am not convinced that the organizations of which she is past president [1] or Fellow [2] are "major" enough/sufficiently exclusive about who they make Fellows to count, but they are at least in the "eh, doesn't hurt" category.) The underlying theme of that guideline is that scholars and academics can be noteworthy through their work even without gobs of media coverage, which seems to be the case here. The article could stand a good de-CV-ization, but I don't think it warrants deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she may actually meet WP:PROF #1. 1 and 2 referenced in the article are independent RS which refer to her as a "giant" or "legend" in her field. Not sure on citation rates in her field, but she's first or second author on several papers or books which have a couple hundred citations each. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 19:56, 19 January 2019 (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.