Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Messina Dysert


 * 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 no consensus. Closing this as no consensus (default to keep) as I highly doubt a third relist would benefit or encourage discussion. Some more sources have been added by contributors to address WP:GNG guidelines. (non-admin closure) st170e talk 15:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Gina Messina Dysert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my PROD as the history and numbered accounts confirm this was part of a paid advertising campaign so policy WP:NOT applies as it is, enough said as we all know there's no compromise s with both paid advertising and numerous accounts involved with such activities. SwisterTwister  talk  22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete not enough impact to pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep The subject of the article barely passes GNG with multiple RS covering her and her writing (Please see my clean up and additions in the article itself). I am not sure where is finding evidence of a "paid advertising campaign." Looking through the article's history, I'm not seeing it, unless you are asserting there is sockpuppetry, I don't see how you can tell this is part of a paid campaign. Please be more specific in such assertions. Further, there is no need to hold the subject of the article to the standard of PROF, GNG is enough. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No impact on the world of scholarship is found. Only GS citations are self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
 * You are holding the subject to a higher standard than GNG. She does not need to pass PROF to be notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think she doesn't yet pass WP:PROF, but that sources like    give her enough notability through WP:GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (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.