Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Arliss

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Daniel (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Arliss

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Neither WP:PROF or WP:BIO appear to be met. The only coverage in RS are extremely brief mentions [1] [2] (this may not even be an RS in terms of establishing notability). The other references cited are primary sources and my own searches did not find anything else. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. She, along with Peter Vardy (theologian), appear to have created a notable body of work. See reviews in Publishers' Weekly,International Journal of Frontier Missions, New Humanist, and Philosophy of Religion for AS Level. pburka (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Presumably you mean NAUTHOR #3?. Personally, I don't consider those reviews sufficient to demonstrate that the book is a "significant or well-known work". The New Humanist in fact suggests the exact opposite we can dispatch a final brutal kicking by judicious selection of a few choice quotes. We would have an enormous number of BLPs on our hands if every author reviewed in publishers weekly merited an article. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I mean, and a review is significant coverage whether it's positive or negative. Per WP:NBOOK#1, books are notable if they've been the subject of two or more reviews. This means several of her books are notable. We could create pages for each of the books, but since we already have pages for the authors I'm happy to just mention them there, instead. In my opinion, it's better to cover books on author pages rather than authors on book pages, as it avoids some BLP coatrack risks. pburka (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. She is a secondary school teacher, her main impact stems from a co-authored book which does not qualify for WP:NAUTHOR. For her to qualify she would have to have multiple books that are independently reviewed and are her own work. Her GS profile shows very little citations / impact in the field meaning she fails WP:NPROF. The journal in which she publishes does not appear to be peer reviewed and is likely not a scholarly publication. --hroest 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little on GS, no pass of WP:Prof. Organizing conferences does not make a person notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per SmartSE and hroest. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Obviously no pass of WP:PROF for a high school teacher with single-digit citations. The case for WP:AUTHOR is less clear-cut, with multiple reviews for what is essentially a single two-volume and two-author work (The Thinker's Guide to God / The Thinker's Guide to Evil) with a more-notable coauthor. If it were really two separate books, or had many more reviews, it might be enough for a weak keep from me, but as it is I think it falls a little short of the mark. The negativity of the reviews also makes it harder to argue that they are significant works. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete In addition to the concerns raised by David Eppstein, the reviews mentioned above include a single-sentence mention (AS Level) and a journal with unclear editorial standards (Frontier Missions). For a WP:AUTHOR pass in the humanities, I'd look for a strong JSTOR presence, and there just isn't one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2021 (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.