Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mercieca


 * 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. Slightly complicated discussion. By headcount we are at 8 delete, 1 weak delete, 2 weak keep and 1 keep. By argument, it seems pretty clear that WP:GNG is not satisfied here, so any keep arguments would have to rely on WP:AUTHOR and WP:NPROF and more specifically with the seventh point of NPROF, "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"; on whether NAUTHOR is met it seems like the opinion is heading towards "not" on account of there being little evidence of it. With regards to the NPROF#7 claim, it seems like there is one editor (or perhaps two) who endorses it and several more which dispute it on the grounds that the coverage is too rarefied/shallow. At the end of the day, this looks like a consensus that the notability criteria are not satisfied as the valid delete arguments are more widely shared. For the sake of completeness, the history of the article isn't really a deletion criterium except in particular cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Mercieca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is an academic who has done academic things but I see no evidence of notability - there are a couple of academic reviews of her books - but that is normal almost trivial stuff in the life of an academic and we'd be a directory if we listed all academic who had a book (I've got three can I have a page?). Cameron Scott (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not her books that count, but the reviews of her books. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cameron I added a section on my public scholarship, in case that makes me more notable to you. I have other things to add too, perhaps the page would seem more impressive if it had more information? Here is my personal page: http://www.jennifermercieca.com/

I'm happy to provide more information, if need be. Thanks for working on this. JM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRMercieca (talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC) — JRMercieca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Little indication of adequate citations yet on GS to pass WP:Prof. Not enough sources yet for WP:GNG. Far too early, try again in ten years time. I have not let the sick-making promotionalism of the BLP affect my views. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Weak keep GS citation counts are largely irrelevant for the humanities. We have multiple reviews of multiple books, which is a good sign for passing WP:AUTHOR, but the second book is a co-edited volume, so it's not as strong a case as it could be. So, "weak keep" it is. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a fallacy that GS citation counts are largely irrelevant for the humanities. Like can be compared with like, and in this case her citations are abysmally below those of her academic peers. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC).
 * It's not a fallacy. There's no point comparing "like with like" if the evaluation of each side of that comparison is non-informative. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare this subject with 262 cites on GS with other American historians (two female, one male) with 267,000 GS cites or this with 12,000 cites or this with 6970 cites. An informative comparison can be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC).
 * You're asking that scholars have to be as influential as Hannah Arendt or Barbara Tuchman in order to be wiki-notable? That's like wanting to delete every biography of any scientist less well-known than Stephen Hawking. Sorry to sound confrontational, but I'm genuinely baffled by the comparison it seems that you are proposing. And I am generally disquieted by the reliance upon a single product from a single company to evaluate all academics across the board. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In a highly cited field I expect more than 262 citations on GS. On WoS I find 6 citations, I can't find anything about her at all on Publons. Maybe I am not using the databases correctly. Scopus gives 67 citations and an h-index of 5. The data need checking, but whatever the case, the numbers are vastly lower than for notable peers. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC).

*Delete Assc. prof who has published only one book, (and co-edited a second collection of essays, which adds little to notability.). But here's the rub. The book self describes as "Part political history, part rhetorical criticism, Founding Fictions is an extended analysis of how Americans imagined themselves as citizens between 1764 and 1845. It critically re-interrogates our fundamental assumptions about a government based upon the will of the people, with profound implications for our ability to people, with profound implications for our ability to.". Now those are topics that a lot of political scientists and historians are keenly interested in. But the book only got three reviews, all in journals of rhetoric. No reviews in major journals or in any poli sci or history journals. Moreover while it has been cited 9 times since publication, it does not appear to have been discussed in any books or journals (except those few reviews). This is not how scholarly notability looks. Clearly fails WP:PROF, perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per XOR and WP:AUTHOR, assuming that the article can be kept appropriately neutral, non-promotional, and non-autobiographical. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. If the weighing mechanism is book reviews, then you can find my books reviewed here: Justin S. Vaughn & Jennifer R. Mercieca, The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama Presidency (edited volume) (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2014). Reviewed: Presidential Studies Quarterly, December, 2014; Perspectives on Politics, September, 2015; Res Rhetorica, February, 2015, Quarterly Journal of Speech, June 2016. Cited in Wikipedia entry for “East Room (White House).”

Jennifer R. Mercieca, Founding Fictions (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2010).

Reviewed: Choice, November, 2010; Journal of Communication, April, 2011; Journal of American History, December, 2011; Journal of the Early Republic, Spring, 2012; Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Spring, 2012; Communication Review, Winter, 2012; The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Spring, 2013; Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Spring, 2013; Rhetorica, Spring, 2013.

JRMercieca (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and remember that anyone looking you up will know that you had to argue hard for article about yourself, rather than wait for an admiring student or fellow scholar to write one. It can be sort of embarrassing.  Not to mention the ongoing problems peope with pages have to deal with, as outlined  in the article I just linked to.  This is meant as  friendly advice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I read several of the reviews. this one in the The Journal of American History is representative Messer, Peter C. The Journal of American History 98, no. 3 (2011): 824-25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41510156.   "The author is a communications scholar, and her interdisciplinary approach is the book's greatest strength but also its weakness...  . Merciea.. makes a series of generalizations... few historians believe, as Merciea apparently does, thst the colonists adhered to the theory of the divine right of kings.  Her implications that the Antifederalists essentially disappeared after the Constitutions ratification and that no non-elite American had  a good reason to support the Constitution will provi=oke bewilderment...  Mercieca's argument that the Jacksonian era saw the creation of a disempowered citizery  stands at odds with the well-chronicled explosion of reform movements in the same years...  The book's rhetorically informed method and its provocative argument that democratic rhetoric in the United States supports an undemocratic political philosophy (or fiction) are intriguing, but its historical and historiographic simplicity compromise its appeal and utility."   Yes, it got reviewed, but the tone of the reviews probably explains why it has not beed much engaged with during a decade when the topic she writes about had been teh subject of so many journal articles and books.  the topics popularity probably explains why editors assigned it for review.  My question is whether we want to keep every page that an associate professor who has written one not-particularly-well-received and non-impactful book writes about her- or himself?  E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly fringe material that has not yet become notable should not be promoted by Wikipedia. I have added this to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC).
 * This isn't a case of fringe material, but of an associate professor of rhetoric not being an expert in history. That's nothing unusual in the way that current academic world values depth of knowledge in a narrow field over breadth of knowledge in a wider field. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. I really didn't think much of this article for a while, but '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 WP:REFBOMBed this article to an absurd degree just wading through all the times she's been quoted. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I always have difficulty evaluating WP:PROF, 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. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That need is satisfied by the description media use: associate professor in communications at A&M University. Nothing further is needed, as it would be if she held some sort of crank or FRINGE view.  She does not.  Merely, she wrote a book about political rhetoric in the early American republic without knowing much about the politics or history of the period.E.M.Gregory (talk)
 * If she's been criticized for writing about a topic outside her lane, then that's an argument in favor of having an article, since that's not a thing that her tagline on a chyron would say. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Reviews are reviews, and we do keep authors who get reviewed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends on the review. The books of most humanities academics get reviewed somewhere, whether they are good or bad. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you, User:Xxanthippe I had the impression tha tit was a hard and fast rule.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Whilst reviews are reviews I am not really seeing a lot here. I really am not sure that reviews alone are enough, there has to be some indication of importance. I note WP:AUTHOR really does not say anything about reviews.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability under PROF, AUTHOR or GNG. --Tataral (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The investigations of User:E.M.Gregory and the citations show that the subject's academic work is not taken seriously by her peers. Therefore there is no pass of WP:Prof. However, due to her media activities, there may be a pass of the less onerous WP:GNG. If the BLP, is kept there should be mention in it of the mixed response to her published work like the extract given by User:E.M.Gregory. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC).
 * I have to say that I find the lack of information rather concerning about her if she is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only material we can source about her, beyond name, rank and serial number, are reviews of her sole book. Her articles on rhetoric appear to have made little impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is rather my point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete One book, which has had demonstrably little impact on a field of studies, the rhetoric of nationhood, that has been hot in the years since she published. If a book matters, other scholars engage with it,  they don't just namecheck it.  No  has shown that ANY of the the many, many books and articles on the rhetoric of nation building in the early American Republic that have done more than namecheck Merciaca.  Or that the handful of journal articles on which she is first author have been impactful. This is NOT what scholarly notability looks like. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Clarifying 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 WP:GNG. GNG requires 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 describes, WP:PROF 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;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what she believes, is is what anyone else believes that matters. When (and if) she becomes notable as a media personality then weer can recreate, but we do not create (or keep) articles because someone might one day be notable. What we should never do is base notability on what someone thinks of themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Mercieca might one day be notable I have asserted she is notable (as in today). I also don't think we should base an article on what she thinks of herself, I am trying to make clear we should write an article based off what WP:RS have said. That is a huge distinction. F-16XL dropping bombs (cropped).jpg. I tried to avoid this scenario.]] To emphasize my point, I will provide some sources. First she was quoted by a few local news organizations.  Here she is with the Guardian (video interview) Quoted by a Washington Post columnist (Opinion). Twice interviewed by NPR.  Do people still like Vice News? I also found this interview by Review 31 (United Kingdom). I even found her interviewed in Minnesota. According to her website, there's even more out there (BBC World News... Diane Rehm, The New York Times, CNN... Australia's ABC Radio, Slate, USA Today, and many other outlets throughout the United States and Worldwide. How many quotes and interviews in national publications would you say it takes to meet WP:ACADEMIC? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And here is the problem, the Guardian is a newspaper, not a TV channel. The first NPR source has her being asked one question, just one. Its all a bit too trivial to really be considered notability. Moreover sources have to be about her, most of these are not, she is a talking head (and not a very important one).Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question of meeting GNG. I already said this article would not meet that guideline. The subject specific guideline clearly states: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. This does not have to with whether something is or is not a newspaper nor the subjective importance of her work. She's frequently quoted and that is all it takes to meet this guideline. I didn't write it, nor do I necessary agree with it in all cases. It's just the standard we have in this case, though. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can get more sources if you want. I just didn't think it was necessary at this point. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not the number, its the overall quality. I am not seeing anything like "news night" or a major piece in the Time. It all smacks of very much Z list.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither the number, nor the range of media comments by Merciaca is all that impressive. Especially for someone who is trying so hard to be a public intellectual, posting incessantly on Twitter  - but has a piddling  5,700 followers.  She is available to give the media a quote on everything and anything - real experts are not.  They stay carefully within the range of material they actually are experts on.  Then there is this, appeared on 27 May, the day this discussion began, asking her Twitter followers to keep her Wikipedia page up.  The page was clearly created by an SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Twitter thing, assuming good faith I don't think that was canvassing more like novelty. She immediatly tweeted replies to it like this. How we operate is either very interesting or very boring to most people. I don't have interest in putting my name constantly out there, but I informed her via twitter about TWA. In regards to publications and followers, I don't know. The whole point of this criterion seems to be for academics who are better at getting media buzz than necessarily being top-of-their field. The Guardian, Vice News, Salon, and All Things Considered (second NPR) pieces were pretty in depth. The twitter follower thing is irrelevant imo. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, the user who created it isn't an SPA. They're a student and were responding to this request. This really seems like a natural creation rather than COI. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This request was originally made by IP 128.194.241.241 at 16.47 on 5 July 2017. The IP geolocates to Texas A&M University. It is surprising that a student editor should, as his first article, have started with such a complex topic as a BLP about an academic. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC).
 * BLPs about academics are not necessarily all that complicated. Where do they work, what are they known for, where did they go to school &mdash; there's an easy pattern to follow. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not easy in this case, it seems. Skill is needed to sort the wheat from the chaff and it wasn't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC).
 * Perhaps she wasn't canvasing, but a Texas-registered IP did add books and sources to the page, as did this infrequent user this one . Odd. Very odd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the exact thing we would want? People to improve the article? It doesn't seem odd to me at all that an article was nominated for deletion, someone tweeted about it, and people are now trying to address the concerns brought up here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, there may well be COI (if they are a student of this person they have a close tie, if they are a... (well I think you get the point)). Also if the fetch up here to vote (so far they have not) that would be an issue. But if they are adding quality sourcing that would not be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to drone on, but is a student in Australia (Mercieca is in Texas). There is a remote possibility that they somehow have a COI, but AGF kind of diminishes that.  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But the Texas based IP is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just, I'm trying to imagine a new user, a student in Australia, deciding to create a wikipedia page about a little known American professor of communications. And to imagine a series of new users, very occassional users, and an IP address adding content to this page on an obscure specialist in political rhetoric.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's take this from the top:
 * On 5 July 2017, 128.194.241.241 (registered to Texas A&M) requests an article on this subject. This could literally have been anyone with access to a campus computer mind you and before any current public facing social media account is registered to the subject.
 * That requests stays up for more than two years because she is found possibly notable enough.
 * Four days ago, on 27 May 2019‎, a student from Australia makes a Wikipedia article after drafting it in their sandbox.
 * Once in the mainspace, it is almost immediately tagged for speedy deletion under WP:A7 by . 2 minutes later, admin denies the CSD on the basis it might be notable. SoWhy writes to qedk on his talk page, and this was where the article caught my attention.
 * Then begins to work on it. In the middle of that,  requests speedy deletion under WP:G11. This is contested by Bridger. A prod tag is put up by . It is, again, contested by Bridger.
 * At some point Mercieca notices all the commotion and tweets about it.
 * Some of her twitter followers react surprising positively by avoiding the deletion debate and instead go straight to improving the article as to address the concerns here.
 * There is no reason to be suspicious of anyone besides the initial IP who made the request 2 years ago. Mind you it could have been anyone who knew the subject at the time, so let's just assume good faith as to only discuss the merits of the article's inclusion. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete 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: 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 WP:GNG and WP:NPROF and that's that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 03:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If, as you seem to suggest, GNews can be gamed, that is important and disturbing. A deeper analysis and hints on detecting fakes would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC).
 * How about checking whether what qedk says is actually true? You will then find that it is not. What we have is someone who obviously makes herself known to the media as a source of quotes, and then a short description of her is given is given with the many quotes from her reported by the media. Nobody is gaming or faking anything here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious right now? Open your goddamn eyes and check GNews instead of blatantly calling other editors liars. But I will take a special interest and prove you wrong right now so that you quit with your terrible attitude. A very slow link for you to understand before accusing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I have looked at the Google News results, and the first dozen or so that I can read (some don't like my use of Adblock Plus, which I'm not prepared to stop, and some are blocked by American paranoia about EU law) mostly quote Mercieca and give such a short description of her. This doesn't make them "fake" in any way, but simply not the type of sources that can substantiate WP:GNG. The only attitude that is terrible here is your continual arguing with experienced editors who point out your mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't the type of reference is referring to. There is a bug with one (or a few) of the websites that quotes the subject in a story. The bug (or maybe it was intentional, idk) indexes multiple stories on every webpage. This means that even though Mercieca is never mentioned, it still comes up as a hit for that website. This is the "fake" result QEDK is referring to. In my opinion, that has more to do with some of the websites themselves and not this deletion discussion since GNews results really are not a valid rationale for deletion one way or another imo. That's just me though. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) qedk said that "literally all of them" have this problem, so just one that doesn't (and, as I say, I looked at about a dozen) falsifies that claim. We should be discussing whether the reviews of Mercieca's work by her peers, who study rhetoric rather than history or politics, are sufficient for a pass of WP:PROF, rather than fake claims of fakery. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Definite lie, I said "literally all of them" quote Mercieca with the same quote, not that all of them are fake. I said that the "majority" of them are fake. Anyone with a decent level of grasp over the English language would understand that "literally" is often used metaphorically but sure, go ahead, use it with your other pointless strawman arguments to rile up other editors. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also untrue that all of them use the same text ,which was what I meant by "this problem" above. Even if the vast majority of 2000 Google News hits do so then they can be ignored, but you are left with quite a few that do not. And don't use the word "literally" unless you mean it literally. It makes discussion with you very difficult. Your wording made it look as if these hits had been faked or gamed in some way, presumably by Mercieca, and at least one editor interpreted it in this way. It's a pretty commonplace occurrence for Google News not to interpret things correctly, and we shouldn't build a conspiracy theory on that. I note that I have at no point accused you of lying, but you accused me directly of such in your comment above. Please don't do that. You seem to have a problem coping with disagreement. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about checking whether what qedk says is actually true? You will then find that it is not. This is your statement, agreed? And now you say, I note that I have at no point accused you of lying... So no, Phil, you did accuse me of lying and then lied when you said you didn't accuse me of lying. So yeah, quit it. I don't have a problem coping with disagreements at all, it's just people who need to use ad hominem and attack the person (read WP:NPA) that really bother me, so yeah definite apologies (not sarcastic, but just fwiw) that I treat you the same. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To lie is to deliberately make an untrue statement. I said that you made an untrue statement, but not that it was deliberate. You seem to have a problem with English comprehension, such as the meanings of "literally" and "lie", as well as with coping with disagreement. All of my comments, here and elsewhere, have been about your edits, not about you as a person, so they are not ad hominem comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I could quote before and after where your comments go beyond content and into the kind of editor you think someone is, and it's not just me. I do not wish to do that for the sole purpose that this discussion is not about your conduct. I bear you no ill-will but you really need to quit it and not argue behind the facade of the English language, and yes, I know my temperament here has not been particularly peaceful but that's primarily due to the disposition you've put me into. If at any point you wish to bury the hatchet, do let me know and I'll be forthcoming. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Phil knows very well the point I am making, assuming bad faith is how it goes for Phil. It is very clear for anyone who opens the links that the article with the hit does not contain the statement being quoted, which means that yes, it is fake. WP:IDHT is just a classic demonstration of the issue at hand, despite me literally showing you the pages and the hits and the difference between the two. So yes, a majority of them are fake and that's that. I do not need you to validate the facts, for the sole reason that it's already a fact. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete The version I listed for G11 was in my opinion a good G11; I think it would have been better to have let it get deleted and started over rather than to build on an obvious piece of PR.   But now that it's here, we should consider notability without regard to the previous history.     Eugene Garfield, who invented citation analysis in academic subjects, refused to include that field in Web of Science, and I have somewhere a letter from him to me explaining why: they are useless for impact factor because they appear over too great a period and impact factor calculations depend only on the 2 years after publication.( Arts and Humanities Citation index was added much later to the ISI family of citation indexes as a result of competitive pressure from Scopus, which included all fields in order to establish itself. )  However, his reason  does not necessarily apply to all possible uses of citation analysis. , and comparing relative citations over time can be reasonable  ; this is especially true when the work in the humanities depends upon journal articles--this was very rare 40 years ago, but is more common now.
 * Looking at her books first, she is the author of only one book  for the other, she is coeditor of a collection of essays, which counts for much less. Looking at citation, her book has been cited 52 times, each of her several articles about 20. This is moderately respectable but not necessarily enoguh for notability  in the subject in comparison to other notable but not famous writers on communication.
 * The discussion aboce of the actual merits of her work is irrelevant. So is the discussion on whether she is quoted enoguh to make her notable. Any academic who publishes anything on a current topic will be quoted. What is needed for the GNG is comprehensive discussions. What is needed for PROF as apublic intellectual, likewise--it has to be proven by actual reliable sources saying so. Scientific influence can be shown b ycitations, but public influence requires the same sort of references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, as WP:BIO.bIt cannot be inferred by being quoted.   DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG - many academics write a book and essays but it's not clear that either she or they have received substantive coverage to establish notability or impact as an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * would more WP:RS help? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per E.M.Gregory and DGG. I am not looking for a "more impressive" article but informative content on a clearly notable subject. As for as I understand the trek to a position of professor or tenured associate professor depends largely on writing, co-writing, and co-editing collections of academic essays as being considered an expert and "published" in a particular field. Just "co-editing" does not seem to exceed a minimum of notability to pass WP:PROF, certainly the one book is controversial for passing WP:NAUTHOR (not even listed in the lead) and User:QEDK questioning of WP:GNG seems valid. I have not nor intend to view this in some political argument light as presented by User talk:MJL but "might be notable" is a BS argument that should never be credited. The burden of evidence for citations falls on those wishing for inclusion. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we should look for what is "now" over what "might be or happen". If there is clear notability then it seems this can be clearly shown and I don't see that this has happened. Otr500 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very confused by your understanding of my reasons to keep. I never said that she "might be notable." I said that she is notable per WP:ACADEMIC. I provided 11 sources to backup that point and have consistently offered more upon request (because there is more). The one time I said the words "might be notable" was in quoting someone else because I wanted to give a factually accurate statement of what they said. I also have conceded, several times now in fact, that the subject would not meet WP:GNG nor any other criterion of WP:NPROF. Please don't take me out of context. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did NOT take anything you said out of context. It is pretty obvious the words I used was in response to the quote you listed that an admin used and I disagree with that type of statement. I also don't think your arguments that "She's frequently quoted and that is all it takes to meet this guideline." qualifies for satisfying WP:ACADEMIC#C7 to allow a pseudo biography. Apparently I am not alone. Otr500 (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2019 (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.