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 is that the topic fails GNG. No other compelling rationale for keeping has been given. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Mercer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The only sources I can find for this article are affiliated or unreliable. Virtually every "biography" is the same PR bio. Nobody appears to have written about her other than her PR bio as a sidebar to her byline. She does seem to enjoy a certain popularity (e.g. with Jordan Peterson), but actual sources for Wikipedia notability are eluding me right now. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although I could change my mind if someone tracks down more sourcing. I'm kind of surprised there isn't more. Mercer is mentioned in this article from the SPLC and this article from Slate, and this one from the Baffler. If the article is kept, it definitely needs to avoid white washing her background. This article should probably also be deleted - maybe we could spin both in to this deletion discussion? Nblund ^talk 01:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see how this page violates any terms of Wiki. Okay, so all the bios of her are similar ... so what? People's stories tend to the be the same. The SPLC and Slate articles mentioned are in my opinion slander, as they try and paint Mercer a "white supremacist," something she isn't. Kc2290 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Kc2290 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue is that her personal bio is not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. We need to establish that she is notable by citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Her personal bio is neither independent nor reliable. The Slate and SPLC sources are actually helpful for establishing her notability, so if you're saying those aren't acceptable, there are really zero sources supporting her relevance. Nblund ^talk 02:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find very many sources for her, but it seems likely that she will get some more in-depth coverage by others later on. For now though, I'm going to have to lean toward WP:TOOSOON on this one. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that this AfD is not showing up on page Ilana Mercer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• undecided. Article is overstuffed with sources, many primary, many others to non-notable blogs. Two of her books appear as bluelinked. However, The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed, has been redirected here. And Into the Cannibal's Pot may not pass WP:NBOOK. there are 3 reviews on hte page, I just added one from American Renaissance (magazine), another from The New American. I am trying not to allow my distaste for these two publications to cloud my objectivity. There is also a review at American Thinker and There is also a writeup of the book by a columnist on WorldNetDaily. this one may also be post-at-will. A review Book Review: 'Into the Cannibal's Pot' by Ilana Mercer on the San Francisco Review of Books website is almost certainly post-at-will. The book and the page on the book may be notable. I'm frankly not certain. Any editor who thinks this page should be kept would do well to weed out all of the PRIMARY and unreliable sources. And bring to this page another solid source or two. While the rest of us try to suppress our emotional response to authors whose books get warm reviews in publications whose perspective WEDONOTLIKE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I can't find any RS to indicate that http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com is connected to the San Francisco Review of Books - which ceased publication in the late 90s. It looks to be a blog page that is piggy-backing on the name recognition of a defunct periodical. Graham Seibert, the author of that Mercer review, appears to be another person who is not notable outside of a few columns for a white nationalist publication. Whether or not we "like" the American Renaissance or WorldNetDaily isn't really the issue: both are unreliable fringe publications which don't do anything to establish the notability of this author. Nblund ^talk 18:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nblund, There's been a spate of these, online book reviews with plausible-sounding names publishing unedited reviews by unpaid writers, and being cited as reliable sources in articles. I am delighted to NOTE that we have deleted the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Journal of Books (I took Teh New York Journal of Books to RS noticeboard about a year ago and got shot down.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the "Quarterly Review" that Mercer is mentioned published in is running the same scam - it's a wordpress website that is completely unrelated to the periodical. It also appears to primarily publish members of the suit-and-tie racism circuit like Paul Gottfried and Taki Theodoracopulos. Nblund ^talk 18:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the AfD notice and the maintenance tag back to the page that @Kc2290: previously removed. Please don't do that again. Doesn't appear to pass GNG as an overwhelmingly majority of the refs in the article are, her personal blog, her personal website and articles at World Net Daily that she wrote. We need independent third-party sources that significantly discuss her. I agree with Nblund that I could change my mind too, but for now it's Delete. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I took the time to run more searches, but what I find is material she published, not WP:SIGCOV, or, frankly, not almost any coverage of her. Her books, columns are out there, but I cannot find writers or media of any note engaging with them. Results on a Proquest news archive search were unique, in my experience, in the high proportion of letters to the editor that her columns provoke. What I am not seeing is sources that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that her book Into the Cannibal's Pot appears to fail WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Not Notable; doesnt meet GNG. The Slate and SPLC articles are getting there, but they're not really in depth. Couldn't find any other references outside of the walled garden of fringe sources she writes for. She may get attention from the mainstream press one day, but she doesnt seem to have gotten there yet. The same goes for Into the Cannibal's Pot- found another review here [1]- (available through Academic Onefile if anyones interested) by Clyde Wilson, but its just as fringey as the rest. Curdle (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went ahead and listed Into_the_Cannibal's_Pot for deletion. Discussion is here
• Comment This article clearly does not warrant deletion. Mercer is a fairly well-known columnist on the Libertarian Right. Her column is syndicated. She has had three well received books published and has appeared and television and radio programs such as The Sean Hannity Show, The Mike Church Show and Russia Today. Kc2290 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom – this is long overdue, kudos to Guy for bringing it here. Despite the constant COI promotion in the article, she's not notable. Her book Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With a Corrupt Culture is held in 37 libraries world-wide; it was published by Toad Tomes Publishers, and according to WorldCat is the only volume ever published by that ancient and august house. Into The Cannibal's Pot: Lesson for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa is held in 41 libraries, and was published by Stairway Press, which offers "complete marketing services powered by online media, social media and internet communities, professional editing and world class graphic design" to aspiring authors. The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed is held in 8 libraries; it was published by Politically Incorrect Press, which according to WorldCat has never published any other title. Just for comparison, Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward is held in 1538 libraries; the publisher, Simon & Schuster, has about 93,858 titles in WorldCat. By a remarkable co-incidence, both Politically Incorrect Press and Toad Tomes Publishers are in Issaquah, Washington; it would be interesting to know if Mercer has any reliably-documented connection to that metropolis. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added bio information that isn't just a "PR bio," and they are from reliable sources.One article written by a 3rd arty and one an interview with subject, yet, every time I make an edit, the template is brought back. To me this discussion is closed. Kc2290 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Ilana Mercer page: with everything taken into account it meets the notability criteria.

WP:WEB "If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable..."

• Comment Woodward had been the most famous journalist--writer in the world for 50 years, and is hardly a cheerleader for Trump. Comparing Mercer to another writer who favours Trump would show there is not a subtle form of selective bias inherent in the mainstream book author notability requirements you are applying. Although two mainstream independent books do not mention Mercer, Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism.” by George Hawley a professor of political science at the University of Alabama, and WE WHO DARED TO SAY NO TO WAR American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now by Murray Polner and Thomas E. WoodsJr. the authors of both have said it was a definite oversight not to include her in their book. Dr. Hawley said “In retrospect, it was a mistake to omit [Ilana Mercer] from the section on paleolibertarianism,” and “the mistake will not be repeated,” and that it may even be amended in updates to the text in time for the release of the paperback edition". “Not featuring you was a regrettable oversight,” admitted Dr. Woods, this was in relation to Mercer's writing for Antiwar.com ect. See http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=864. I think that if expert authors agree she is noteworthy enough for their books on right wing and antiwar thought respectively, then she passes the notability test. For almost 20 years she was nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate "and not only is Mercer a veteran paleolibertarian writer. She is unquestionably the most visible, the most widely read, of such contemporary writers." according to Jack Kerwick, here. There is a case for deletion at first blush, but on close inspection it seems weak. The page on her does/did have serious problems with neutrality, tone, balance and promotion, but what page on a living writer doesn't? The page on Mercer specifically formerly mentioned and links to a page on an old book of hers that had a title central to the controversy that drew the not entirely admiring attention to her that one can detect above. The page on that book should not exist I agree, and the Ilana Mercer page needs more balance and less puff for her books (page seems to have been pared down quite critically).Overagainst (talk)

So, she meets WP:SIGCOV because of these two books that didn't mention her? Mercer herself is the source for both quotes, and I don't see any indication that either author mentioned Mercer in subsequent publications. Nblund ^talk 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm once again removing the notice of deletion. The subject is noteworthy and deserving a Wikipedia article. Kc2290 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2018 (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.