Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Amenta


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Donna Amenta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Initially started this as an AfD, then mid-way through making the talk page the evidence tilted me to making it a PROD. That was removed for a valid reason I wasn't aware of so now I am circling back with the AfD I initially intended to make.

She seems to be a rather unremarkable scientist where the wiki page has been in need of citations for 8 years. There is a single source to her faculty page which was broken for some time (and admin fixed this earlier). That page has minimal info and only provides some very basic information on her. I was unable to find anything meaningful about her through searching methods that could even come close to satisfying notability guidelines. There's also a list of books on the side of the page that she seems to not have written and I am not sure why they are there as they don't even seem science related? Of what I did find, she appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF by a good margin.

Arguments for Non-notability
There is very limited information that comes up through searching which already suggests insufficient notability. To be considered for WP:PROF, one of the 8 conditions must be met, for each she does not, as explained:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * No. According to google scholar and Scopus, she has around 20 papers published, about 60 citations, and an h-score of 5. For someone late in their career this is very low. However, this is unsurprising as (assuming the article in the information is accurate) took a slow and long path to professorship had has not been a research heavy professor. As such she would not be noteworthy by point 1.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * No. While she won awards, they all seem internal to her institution. I was unable to find any national or international level awards, and it would be surprising if she had based on her career path.

3. The person 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) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
 * No. She does not appear to have been part of any high society or association.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * No. Given her small publishing footprint, it would be quite surprising if she had.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
 * No.. While she was department chair for a period of time at JMU, this does not appear to be a named or distinguished appointment.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * No. She does not seem to ascended beyond being department chair for 10 years.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * No. I was unable to find any evidence of this, including searching for impact by her teaching.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * No. This does not seem to be the case and I couldn't find anything on this.

Other Comments
From what I found on rate-professor pages, she is regarded as a kind and friendly person, and she seems to have had a long and positive career likely impacting many students. It however, sadly does not count towards notability guidelines and the is article just doesn't cut the mustard for being on wikipedia. If there was something I missed and it turns out she is noteworthy though, please indicate. I am relatively new at this and still make mistakes here and there regarding wiki policies.

Thanks! -- Tautomers (T C) 06:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Her citation counts are not high enough for WP:PROF, her university-level distinguished teacher awards do not meet the level of #C2, and her work as department head neither meets #C5 (which is about chairs given for scholarly excellence, not administrative roles) nor #C6 (which only applies to the head of an entire university). The "notable works" in her infobox appear to have been copied from Renata Adler and have no connection to her. So we have no evidence of passing any notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Concur with David Eppstein. I don't see a pass via citations on C1 nor do I see any of the other NPROF boxes ticked.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. A worthy person, but clearly does not meet our criteria for an article. --Bduke (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry but GS citations are not enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete. No evidence of citations for WP:NPROF C1, nor of any other NPROF criterion, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-examined nomination and David Eppstein. Though her article did inspire me to write a Frank B. Mallory (chemist) stub for her advisor and page-move and do some work on his eponymous Mallory reaction, so that's some win here. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: No thank button here so I shall say thanks for the new articles/improvement! -- Tautomers (T C) 20:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and other arguments here. Being a really good professor unfortunately does not merit you your own wiki article, unless you're so good that completely unaffiliated people start talking about it.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete some versions of Wikipedia have a standard that all full professors are notable, but we have no such standard of Wikipedia, and as was clearly demonstrated in the nomination Amenta does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pasting my comment from the PROD discussion: She indeed only has an h-index of 5 and a total of 67 citations, well, well below that of other chemists with WP articles. Being a professor is by itself not enough to meet NPROF; the article as it stands definitely does not demonstrate notability of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2021 (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.