Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caner Dagli


 * 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. Beyond the debate that was already had below, I'll only add that most of the links that were provided here to establish notability would not qualify as "significant" coverage. is a few quotes in a news article, for example. is one quote in a news article. Publications and his professorship were already discussed in the debate. ST47 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Caner Dagli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While accomplished, simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. His major claim to fame is his participation in the Study Quran, which is a co-work with a meager 91 citations.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep The International Policy Digest describe him as a 'noted islamic scholar', he is interviewed at some length in the National Catholic Register , and translating and annotating the Quran is an enormous job - even with four co-authors (compare the King James Bible which took 47). The wikipedia page The Study Quran has links to reviews - I don't think citations are an appropriate measure of impact in this case. He's also written two articles for The Atlantic. WP:NAUTHOR might be a better set of criteria here Polyharrisson (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Articles for deletion/International Policy Digest closed as delete. It is a website that solicits  articles  from the world at large (no editing, no journalists).   English translations of the Quran are common, and do not automatically confer notability.  Writing articles, even for The Atlantic does not contribute to notability unless the articles are impactful, i.e., discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources.  Also Note that I cannot find any book reviews of The Study Quran, the page is sourced to remarks about the translation by a bluelinked Imam, and two articles in WP:RS about the translation's possible, potential political impact.  But no reviews in scholarly or general circulation publications.  And no articles about any actual political impact. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Brother, His 2015 Atlantic article 'Phony Islam of ISIS' alone have been cited numerous times in so called Secondary sources. See for exam. Theodore M. Vial's 2016 book, Modern Race, Modern Religion; Robert Spencer's 2015 book The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS; A Kadir Yildrim's 2019 Baker Institute Paper, New Guardians of Religions: Islam and Authority in the Middle East and not to mention NYT's below-mentioned article and The conversation's reference of that article in rebuttal to Woods. Again, the study Quran is not getting proper appraisal from a studious person like you. I will come to that if you don't. Mosesheron (talk) Page Creator. —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are Some scholarly reviews of the Study Quran, besides those mentioned in the page itself, from Journal of American Academy of religion , JSTR , College Theology Society's Horizons, , in American Thinker, along with hundreds of thousands of reviews in numerous scholarly accounts. Mosesheron (talk), Page Creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesheron (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I think the New York Times (which portrays him as 'an Islamic scholar'), the Conversation (which describes him as 'a well known scholar of Islam') and the International Policy Digest (which sees him as 'a noted Islamic scholar') are some of the independent reliable sources which establish his notability. The General Notability clauses (which is WP:GNG), therefore, could never be invoked in this case. Since he's an associate professor, WP:NSCHOLAR could make an excuse. This too, however, doesn't work in his case. In any case, Dagli remains a 'notable scholar' in his field, of course with sufficient coverage required to have him included here. WP:NAUTHOR still remains a 'better option' for him as per Polyharrisson. It seems the proposer (in my case, Onel5969) entirely failed to appreciate the contribution my 'protagonist' has made in Quranic studies by participating in the Study Quran Project. There are, of course, many other things to consider which, I think, will judiciously be done by other experienced editors. Best of luck (for me of course). Mosesheron (talk)
 * Article creator Mosesheron, Please take a look at WP:OWN, and also at Assume good faith, and also try to understand that your assertion that WP:SIGCOV exists is not useful to this discussion in the way expanding the page with properly cited and sourced material would be. In addition, when a page creator comments at AfD, it is important that s/he self-identify as the page creator in the comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes mention you cite is : "(As Caner K. Dagli, an Islamic scholar, put it recently in The Atlantic, if ISIS can reasonably claim to be faithfully following Islamic law, “this might lead a thoughtful reader to wonder what all the other Muslims are doing.”)" is a brief mention, as is ("Caner Dagli, a well-known scholar of Islam, rejected Woods’ argument:...") citation in the Conversation.  An expert in a field being cited in this way is not regarded as establishing notability.  Being one of 5 authors of a scripture commentary is not enough to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In re 'one of 5 authors': I draw your attention to this- 'The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.' I think The Study Quran, Passes the test.Mosesheron, Page, Creator.

My article is being subjected to vandalism. If the page gets deleted, of course after discussion, I should have no objection. But removing valid contents maliciously (i.e. the books he has written), albeit, is not what we are here for.Mosesheron  —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC or WP:SIGCOV. Page suffers Citation overkill. mere mentions and articles he authored.   E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After I removed articles he wrote that got no SECONDARY coverage along with the mere mentions discussed above the relist,  We are left with  2 petitions/statements that he signed, and with that fact that he was one of 5 co-editors/co-authors of The Study Quran.  The closest we come to WP:SIGCOV is an interview in  International Policy Digest (Articles for deletion/International Policy Digest).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In re Secondary coverage Brother, His 2015 Atlantic article 'Phony Islam of ISIS' alone have been cited numerous times in so called Secondary sources. See for exam. Theodore M. Vial's 2016 book, Modern Race, Modern Religion; Robert Spencer's 2015 book The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS; A Kadir Yildrim's 2019 Baker Institute Paper, New Guardians of Religions: Islam and Authority in the Middle East and not to mention NYT's above-mentioned article and The conversation's reference of that article in rebuttal to Woods. Again, the study Quran is not getting proper appraisal from a studious person like you. Please Brother, don't be blind. Mosesheron (talk), Page Creator.

Mr E.M.Gregory, can you please tell us why did you remove the list of his books that I added? Mosesheron —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An editing error. My apologies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * in re: those 2 books. (I had copypasted them to search them and deleted in error) Ibn Al-'Arabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From Mysticism to Philosophy pub. date 2016 but no reviews come up in a JSTOR search.  The other book is a 2 volume encyclopedia of Islam.  No reviews in JSTOR.  Publisher is Oxford University Press which lists Degli as an "Editorial board member" .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. By now we know that he has written and'edited' some other books, one of which is a giant encyclopedia on Islam published by the Oxford University Press. Mosesheron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SECONDARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Possibly userfy. Page creator Mosesheron is a very new editor who has rapidly created 14 pages,  most or all are about scholar of Islam and all are brief, scanty, and poorly sourced.  As in the page under discussion here, each page lacks inline citations, uses  urls as citations, relies heavily on PRIMARY sources, and fails to make a cogent case for notability. Any or all of them is liable to be brought to AfD and necessitate a prolonged discussion.    Unsurprisingly in a new editor, Mosesheron appears to be unaware that the best way to keep a page on an individual you perceive as notable, is to improve the page.  Becasue he is such an new editor, and appears not to know the difference between a subject who is briefly quoted by a journalist, and a piece of journalism that covers the subject in significant depth, I suggest that we WP:USERFY this page to give Mosesheron time to build a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that  Mosesheron responded to this suggestion on his talk page: "We are just done. Adios". E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really understand what I said? I have never seen such an idiosyncratic character in my entire Life. You are one of the rarest breeds on Wikipedia who believe that an academic should fulfill the criteria of a musician and a footballer shoul meet that of an actor. The pages I have created, I believe, all have got their criteria fulfilled under the respective rules and clauses. If you think otherwise you should challenge them all. But never should you attack somebody who, while acting bonafide, is trying to do the same job you are doing. I don't know how I have acted otherwise. You on the contrary have tagged all my articles with inappropriate tags, which I think, is very unruly for an experienced Editor like you. There is no way but surrendering to an unconscionable person like you where we, newcomers, even if we shout at the top of our voices, are given little attention. We plead against a person a like you and, if not heard, we quit. Mosesheron —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please Also consider his interview on CNN , an in depth coverage in the Atlantic an interview in Orbiter Magazine , in Los Angeles Times , a review of one of his books in Oxford Journal of Islamic Studies, another review in Nazariyat, Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences Mosesheron , Page Creator. —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is an associate professor in religious studies fails WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 1 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.