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. Withdrawn by nom, no need to keep this going. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Gay[edit]

Geneva Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Some concern of it being an autobiography. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Washington. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google Scholar search is showing that Gay's work is cited very heavily: the top five results have 13889, 4295, 1394, 1087, and 940 citation respectively. That seems like a pretty straightforward pass of WP:NPROF crit. 1: she is "an author of highly cited academic work". (It's possible that she might pass WP:NAUTHOR or other NPROF criteria as well, although I haven't looked into it too carefully.) The promotional/COI editing is definitely a problem, but that can be dealt with through the usual processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an extremely clear WP:NPROF pass (criteria 1, 2, 4, possibly 8), and almost certainly WP:NAUTHOR as well (my internet connection is having trouble so I've only dropped in a couple books and reviews, but there are more I haven't added, and surely more I didn't find before giving up). I don't know how this can possibly be called promotional either; it's about five sentences long and straightforwardly factual. The editor who tried to drop in 20k bytes of content recently openly admits to block-dodging; if that's what the nom means by "promotional", it's not in the article right now, and we can just block that editor again and move on. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's very rare to see five-digit citation counts in Google Scholar for a single work of a deletion nominee; that alone would make a strong case for WP:PROF#C1, and the high citations for many other works confirm it. There are also now enough book reviews listed to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this seems like a slam-dunk for notability under either WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. I don't see any obvious issues with tone either, it seems very dry and straightforward. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the citation counts in google scholar, it's hard to claim she fails WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 28 February 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.