Deletion of Julie Arliss

Comment: per . She, along with Peter Vardy (theologian), appear to have created a notable body of work. See reviews in https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-903816-22-6 ''Publishers' Weekly'',http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/20_4_PDFs/117.hammond.pdf ''International Journal of Frontier Missions'', https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/671/superior-sniggers ''New Humanist'', and https://www.google.com/books/edition/Philosophy_of_Religion_for_AS_Level/XdDUAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA124&printsec=frontcover ''Philosophy of Religion for AS Level
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Obviously no pass of  for a high school teacher with single-digit citations. The case for  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: fails  and . She is a secondary school teacher, her main impact stems from a co-authored book which does not qualify for . For her to qualify she would have to have multiple books that are independently reviewed and are her own work. Her https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Julie+Arliss%22 GS profile shows very little citations / impact in the field meaning she fails . The http://www.dialogueaustralasia.org/dialogue-journal/ journal in which she publishes does not appear to be peer reviewed and is likely not a scholarly publication
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:NPROF||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:NPROF)