Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Engler


 * 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Steven Engler

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:PROF with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails to prove the authenticity as no significant coverage reference is added Wikisuper945  Talk Here  01:20, 12 November 2021 (IST)
 * Note, has been blocked as a sock-puppet of  Elemimele (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete ( vote changed, explanation below ) he does seems to be of some authority as he is cited as a religious expert in a number of articles Why doesn't Easter have a fixed date? – CBC Calgary, – 'Pope Francis Effect' Partly Credited With Increase in Exorcisms – ABC News, and Catholic Bishop's assisted death guidelines to help priests save "the person’s soul" – Calgary Herald. These pass WP:RS; however, I feel for some reason that they don't really confer notability unto him other than someone who the news asks religious questions to. It's feels like a borderline case here to me. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He passes WP:NPROF as co-editor of the journal Religion. gnu 57 01:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * C8 says, "The person has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." I'm not sure that co-editor applies. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that the professor may have notability per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews at Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion and other reviews such as this. Pinging and  to see what they think. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should probably discount Wikisuper945's vote...they just signed up and went straight to participating in AfD. Very suspicious. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are based on three factors: (1) he doesn't necessarily pass WP:GNG on his own per my arguments above (2) he should not be considered under WP:NPROF because that's his weakest way to notability (3) he arguably, but only arguably, passes WP:NAUTHOR. However, with (1) and (3) combined plus WP:IAR, it feels like there's enough here to keep in terms of notability. He seems worthwhile enough to keep to me. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * why to discontinue my vote?, as just few days back i have singed up and participated in AfD. what makes you feel suspicious in this? (Just a question)SL93. this is right that i am a new user and trying to learn as much as many thing i can and even trying hard to avoid consequences but during the learning i have received a suggestion to edit and review this page and so far what i have learned through, i come to my vote that the article don't have any significant coverage to prove the authenticity.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuper945 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 November 2021 (IST)
 * 99% of the time in my experience, a new editor that participates in AfD quickly without much other activity is a SOCKPUPPET. I'm not saying that you are one, but I am thinking that you at least don't know the guidelines and policies enough for AfD due to being a new editor. I'm not sure what you mean by authenticity. SL93 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One really ought to assume good faith, but in this case was right: Wikisuper945 was blocked as a sock-puppet of Marathi.Wiki.Editor Elemimele (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as I can tell, and this is not my area of expertise but I do have a basic indication in this respect, 1057 citations in the field of religious studies would satisfy several WP:PROF criteria. If he currently has a professorship this would more than seal the deal, but I'm not entirely sure he does. In any case his impact as discussed previously, indicates he's a notable academic. This isn't quantum physics, so don't look for 50k citations as evidence of notability. PK650 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Being the editor of several religious studies texts, "The Oxford handbook of the study of religion" would seem to confer notability. He's got well over 500 texts that come up in GBooks, a rather large body of educational works. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very significant publications.Multipleco-editorships, (I wouldn;t be that sure about just one of them)  DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 4 December 2021 (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.