Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mercieca (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus appears to strongly endorse the conclusions of the previous AfD. Per suggestions in several comments I am going add a light dose of salt (restricting recreation to extended confirmed editors). Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Mercieca
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This lengthy deletion discussion, closed less than two months ago, determined that the subject was not notable. The new article has been written in good faith by a new contributor, and the content is different, but the available sources and the subject's notability do not appear to have changed in the time since the last discussion. Girth Summit  (blether) 00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. My position hasn't changed. The subject still meets WP:ACADEMIC. I do realize this arguement was thrown out last time, and I fully expect similar results. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. There is no more notability than there was two months ago. Try again in five years when she may have established more of a reputation WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Pings All of you participated in the last debate discussion in some way. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the pings MJL. I didn't want to do that myself - given the previous discussion closed with delete, I was concerned that it would look like canvassing. Since you're voting counter to the previous consensus, I don't think there can be any concerns about you doing it. Girth Summit  (blether)  00:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] It's the least I could do for you writing this. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. The last AfD was a mess but my opinion hasn't really changed. Four reviews for Founding Fictions on JSTOR    (with probably more elsewhere) and at least two elsewhere for The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations (a co-edited volume rather than an authored book, but still)   seem like a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR to me. And the new article doesn't look especially promotional to me (which was a problem with the deleted version). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG (as written in the previous AfD). The goal of criterion 7 seemed to be a recognition that academics could be public figures in their own right (and not meet the other criterion). In WP:Draft_rewrite_of_Notability_(academics)/Side-by-side, the point was made that this "falls in line with other Wikipedia standards of significant coverage." Because of this (and that there was some initial skepticism of this criterion added to begin with), we should hesitate to treat criterion 7 any differently then how interviews are treated for other subjects under WP:GNG. Our expectations is that the usual standard of meeting GNG is not the sheer number of interviews or quotes in a newspaper, radio program, or television newscast but an expectation of substantial reporting about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clear explanation of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC).


 * Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per David Eppstein's !vote and mine from last time. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I analyze on the same basis as, but weigh the factors differently. A co-edited volume counts much less than an authored book, and so there is only one substantial publication. This isn't enough for either WP:AUTHOR (I point out that every academic book has at lest one and usually 2 reviews, regardless of significance--the point of academic reviews of academicbooks is to tell scholars what other people are publishing--its the humanities equivalent of being listed in an abstracting service) , and her work is not cited sufficiently for WP:PROF as an influential academic./ With respect to the possibility of WP:PROF as a public influence (which, as pointed out, is essentially thesame as WP:GNG, though generally interpreted fairly narrowly), there is not substantial coverage. If references 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were substantially about her, or her work, they would be, but they are not. It is necessary to read the references, not just look at thetitles: in each of them, she is just one of several people quoted, to add material or perspective to the reporter's or commentator's content. None ofthe 5 give her special attention. Nor should we give any credance to the reporter describing someone they quote as an authority--that's the routine description, in order to justify using them in the first place: everyone whose opinion an essayist or reporter uses automatically is called by them an "authority". There is possibly some place to build an index of everyone ever mentioned in a magazine or newspaper, but it isn't Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suggest pivoting to Founding Fictions as more clearly meeting notability guideline WP:NBOOK, and redirect / briefly cover her there. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Most of the sources seem to be either trivial or written by her. It also seems to try to much to say "look at how notable she is, she has even written for the BBC". It all strikes me as a tad too needy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cut the article some slack this time. This is the user's literal first article, and they are only trying their best. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am explaining why I am voting delete, and as I recall this is exactly what was wrong with the article the last time as well. An overe reliance on trivial mentions and "puffing".Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there were also concerns someone with a COI wrote the article. This is not the same level of puffery that would suggest this is the case. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything about a COI here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I mean for the last AFD that was the case. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I !voted delete in the previous discussion, but it looks like a borderline case to me too; the new article seems less promotional than the first one. --Tataral (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Still fails NAUTHOR as I missed the in-depth reviews ON THE BOOKS. Consensus on failing NPROF hasn't shown to change and I agree with the comments of User:DGG. I don't want to take anything away from the article author but a secondary twist on a "professor" now written as a "historian of American political rhetoric" that "authored" two books does not add to notability. One book, one co-authored book, and some mainly Trump rhetoric is what is presented. The subject at least did throw in some "history" in one rhetoric commentary when comparing Trump to Andrew Jackson. Otr500 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

*Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF. A simple case of WP:TOOSOON for this relatively early career academic. Another book, an impactful paper, and she may well become notable. But she is not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC) blocked sock. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - essentially per MJL and Eppstein. I think she passes our notability criteria, in particular per WP:PROF#C7. What convinces me here is substantial direct citation of her views by high profile international newspapers, such as New York Times -  or here. Also writes as a columnist in several major newspapers, such as USATODAY. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am the author of the article. I chose to write about Mercieca because I saw that she is a much sought after commentator on an issue that is of keen interest in the political debate raging today in the United States. Her name turns up everywhere when political analysts are trying to understand how the media reports on what our leaders are telling us, and the way our political leaders are conducting this debate. I think it behooves us, as Wiki editors (I am new so maybe I am being immodest now) to be a resource for readers who want to know more about someone who is so much in the news. I was advised to examine the arguments that have already been discussed here, such as WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF and others, but I can never argue these as well as someone who has more experience with these rules. But this argument has not yet been used here: the argument that, although Mercieca is relatively unknown, in a certain important niche of political discourse, she is definitely a crucial voice. Since I want to know more about her, I believe there are others who also want to know more. And isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? I know that was a bit long, so I appreciate that you took the time to read, and consider this view. Thanks.FetalFlaw (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Part of the point of WP:PROF is that we provide a public service by helping readers find out who people that the news cites as "experts" or "authorities" really are. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true, but we should be cautious of giving the reader the impression that someone is more of an 'expert' or 'authority' than they really are. The article makes assertions such as 'She writes extensively in the media', which sounds quite impressive, but the sourcing only demonstrates that she's written a single opinion piece in USA Today, and one article as a 'contributor' on HuffPost - which, per WP:Perennial sources, has minimal editorial oversight and should be considered as a self-published source. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many of the refs are primary, trivial mentions, or web stuff. Academics are experts per se in topical matters and it is not unusual to see occasional quotes and such pertaining to their respective areas of expertise or their writings appearing in the media. Such does not satisfy PROF c7 (as the text there makes clear). I think the technicalities are well summed-up above by DGG. The original article, Afd'd only about 2 months ago, seems to have been created by a SPA and this version was resurrected by an account that was only 2 weeks old. There seems to be quite a push for this individual to have an article, but GS suggests this person is a "typical professor": a book and a mildly-cited body of scholarship contributed over the last 15 years. This, unfortunately, is a record that we do not ordinarily consider sufficiently notable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I assure you there is no concerted effort to guarantee this subject coverage on Wikipedia. The article's creator was merely following a request located at WikiProject Requested articles. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you furnished this assurance in the 1st AfD as well. Is it possible that new users are just a lot more sophisticated nowadays, knowing esoterica like RFAs after having edited only a half-dozen articles? Perhaps. Or, perhaps COI is a more parsimonious explanation. In the 1st AfD geolocated the anon IP back to the subject's home institution and raised basically this same concern. Given the history and the fairly quick recreation of the article from RFA by a new editor, I think it is reasonable that commentators here should be aware of this possibility. Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To add, the user page implies this person does not even understand the functionality of his/her talk page (I can almost hear a cutesy tee hee hee when reading it), but this same user navigates RFA? Beg pardon if I find this incongruous. Agricola44 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh... are we now expecting users to know everything about how Wikipedia works from the get-go? There are huge edit notices for RFA. None exist for FF's userpage. / &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Were you not even a little surprised when this editor beat you to the punch on an RFA maintenance task? That's some pretty impressive procedural knowledge for a new user, who claims to not know what her talk page is for. Agricola44 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, this may sound petty, but it kind of bothers me you keep calling WPRA RFA. I really don't get why this is an issue to be discussed at this AFD unless we're following Please bite the newbies. Some people have an easier time picking up certain tasks over others. The entire userpage is tongue and cheek anyways. This isn't that big of a deal. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I admit I AGF like it's going out of style, but this is a more compelling case. FetalFlaw's talk page shows no signs of having a COI. Talk:Jennifer Mercieca also includes the banner for WikiProject Requested articles. Further, the prose was sufficently different from the previous article that G4 was declined by .  &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do try to AGF, given the history of the previous page and the previous AfD, I find it extremely unlikely that a random new editor just happened to start this page on an subject tath recently underwent deletion. That said, I do not know whether FetalFlaws is the page subject, a friend or fan of the page subject, or someone who shares Mercecia's political opinions and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, such as the fact that Wikipedia has fewer articles about female than about male scholars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had thought that this AfD contained less WP:COI than the first, but now I see I was mistaken. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC).

*That said, brief quotes in the popular press ≠ notability. We are still left with an academic who has written only book, a book that 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 a WP:NPROF looks like. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel like I need to defend myself, but this seems like the wrong place, but I am doing it anyway. I am certainly getting an education, if nothing else. I assure everyone here that I have no vested interested in whether Mercieca's page stays up or goes down. As a matter of fact, GirthSummit's and Agricola44's arguments are compelling, and I might be convinced now that the subject of the article will get more respect than she really deserves by having a Wiki article about her, and therefore should not. By now I am quite sorry I wrote this article, and I will admit my only vested interest is how much time I spent on this. In answer to the question "how could I possibly know how to navigate the requested articles page?", here is my answer: I don't really remember how I first found the page, but once I was there, it seemed a perfect place to get a subject to write an article about. Notice Mercieca was under "Academics", which is one of the first categories on this list--I basically grabbed the first person that seemed half-way interesting. Then I just followed the directions written there. It says to put a tag on the article that it is part of the "requested articles" project. It also says to delete the subject from the list, which I also did. I don't really see what is so "esoteric" about this. Doesn't everyone who doesn't really know what they are doing just "follow the directions?" Until I found Mercieca on the requested articles page, I never even heard of her. I actually thought that if someone is on the requested articles page, it means Wikipedia wants the article written. I had no idea there was a previous article written, ever, and that it was only deleted a few months ago. Believe me, if I had known this, I would not have written this article. Just to prove this and everything else I am saying, I am switching my vote to Delete FetalFlaw (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete still not evidence of notability. Run of mill academic (me too). Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete she is just a run of the mill academic. I am reminded of the recent paraphrase of Churchill on the current state of academic publishing "Never have so many written so much for so few". My cousin Melissa Lambert Milewski has a PhD, has had two books published, and such, but she is no where near notable. I strongly suspect Brian Q. Cannon and Jay Buckley are notable. At least Bickley I think his book William Clark: Indian Diplomat has become seminal, Cannon I am less sure his work has ever become super significant, but I hold off on creating articles because I figure it is bad enough that I have created articles on Ignacio M. Garcia (holds named chair, so clearly notable), Fred E. Woods (held named chair, notable there, also a very proliffic writer), Camille Fronk Olson and Arnold H. Green, I don't want to create articles on every professor I had at BYU.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I could have included Eric R. Dursteler in my list, but I sent that through the AfC process because I was not fully convinced he was notable. I actually can think of another history professor and another three religion professors I had who I have created articles on, although two of those four articles were deleted. I don't think I created the article on Donald Q. Cannon, but I may have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

*Note that page creator has struck her "keep".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because the creator of the page. The comment and opinion were not changed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * She has also voted "Delete". See two inches above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Yes, I see. That's because others wrongly accused FetalFlaw of bias/COI/whatever and she wanted to show she does not care. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I added "Salt" because the dubious features surrounding the creation of both versions of the BLP show that more scrutiny is needed before another recreation is allowed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete per nomination and the reasons provided above by Enos733 and DGG. And I second whatever salt is being tabled. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:20, 9 August 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.