Deletion of Jennifer Mercieca

Comment: I always have difficulty evaluating #C7, but I tend to think that if the media frequently relies upon a person as a go-to expert, we best serve the public by saying who that person is
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per #C7. I really didn't think much of this article for a while, but {{u|E.M.Gregory}}'s comment above intrigued me to look into this more. I found 10 more references we can use for the article (I stopped at 10, I can find more upon request). My reading of this is that Mercieca is ''frequently'' cited by news organizations when they want to talk about political rhetoric. Writing articles on Academics is admittedly not my area of expertise, but I am like 90% confident that the subject meets that specific portion of |NPROF. I almost ed this article to Special:Diff/899299460|an absurd degree just wading through all the times she's been quoted. &#8211
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC||WP:NPROF||WP:REFBOMB)

Comment: Little indication of adequate citations yet on GS to pass rof. Not enough sources yet for . Far too early, try again in ten years time. I have not let the sick-making promotionalism of the BLP affect my views
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:GNG)

Comment: per XOR and , assuming that the article can be kept appropriately neutral, non-promotional, and non-|autobiographical
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTOBIO)

Comment: To address some points made above, I'd like to clear things up. First, I don't think this article is notable based on the . GNG requires {{tq|'''significant coverage'''}} which is ''not'' to be found here. I also do not think the subject meets the normal NPROF route. ''There are no significantly quantifiable reviews of her first book.'' This is where I !vote to keep comes in. As {{u|XOR'easter}} describes, #C7 is made for the situations we have found ourselves in. We have an individual who has clearly portrayed themselves as an academic, but such individual lacks the academic "chops" (if you will) to be considered notable in that field. The alternative route to notability (from my reading of PROF#C7) is becoming notable for frequent media appearances in your capacity as an academic. |Reliable sources in the news media have frequently cited her contributions and thoughts, but her colleagues in the academic field have thus far dismissed several of her claims. The solution here is not to delete the article outright, but instead it is to naturally portray what it is she believes and the critical response to it (both good and bad). I hope that all makes sense. I still can provide more sources if needed... &#8211
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:RS)

Comment: I was going to take this to AfD at some point but I totally forgot (thanks, Cameron!). There's two particularly problematic things, one is the fact that this article needs to be shoved down for some reason, contested and recontested on arbitrary whims when three editors on three separate occasions have voiced this isn't good enough. Secondly, this was my reply to SoWhy (who said that the decline was because she ''might'' be notable and that is not a vote of confidence) and why I feel something is definitely wrong: {{tq|There is something weird going on, I checked the GNews hits and literally all of them have the same Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political discourse and co-editor of “The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama... statement. On further opening the link, the given article has nothing to do with the professor. Two more sources repeat explains Texas A&M communications professor Jennifer Mercieca, author of a forthcoming book on Trump's rhetoric. which are opinion pieces and not the news organization themselves. My point is, the majority of the 2000 GNews hits are fake, you can check it yourself as well.}} I care less about the impending mysterious IPs coming down on us, as I think this article does not qualify  and  and that's that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPROF)