1043:. That's where I first heard of Harron, and I created the current page as I believe that her thesis (which was also published as a book) is notable as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (as demonstrated in the article). As noted above, no sources distinguish between the contents of the thesis and the book, and even if they did the thesis would be notable on its own. I intentionally kept the "About the author" section minimal, as I did not want it to appear that I was trying to recreate the deleted biography, but if there is a consensus to expand that section I wouldn't object. That this page, too, would be nominated for deletion came as no surprise—Harron's message clearly upsets some people—and grumbles about the "legitimacy" of her scholarship are, frankly, amusing, since she herself writes that she "doesn't do math the 'right way'".
506:
professional degree of editorial oversight and scrutiny where reviewers are completely independent of the author. Further, typically dissertations get transformed to some extent when they move into book form;; either through additions of new material or whittling down of extraneous material more appropriate for a dissertation than a book. Rarely, do dissertations get published as they are. Ultimately, it's too far of a leap to claim transference of coverage of the dissertation to coverage of the book. Lastly, the best review of the dissertation is specifically using it as a way to advocate for more creative writing in future doctoral dissertation writing. A clear distinction is being made here in publishing format in the cited sources.
409:. The publications by Anastasia Kamanos, Julia Molinari and Evelyn Lamb are about her doctoral thesis and not the book. They are fundamentally different publications, and notability is not inherited. The Philip Ording publication is a one sentence name drop and has mo mention of the book. The article by Amber Dance also makes no mention of the book. The Springer Nature Switzerland source is the publisher and seller of the book and is not an independent source. The two journal articles by Piper Harron and the University of Toronto bio by Piper Harron are also not independent as she is the author of the book. The only significant source is the review from
970:, the sourcing here is clearly enough to pass the GNG. I wouldn't go as far as ReaderofthePack but the current "About the author" section is too short and misplaced, it should be near the top (e.g. "Context") and give a bit more detail from some of the sources. Clearly if that material is in the deleted bio article then a merge from the recovered article would be sensible.
132:
127:
136:
119:
483:; introducing a distinction between the book and the dissertation is splitting a hair that none of our sources split, and which would be at odds with how mathematical publishing works in general. Publishing a thesis as a book produces a book-version-of-the-thesis, not a wholly separate entity. At most, the distinction is between two
572:(1), with in-depth discussion in several RS independent of the author. The argument that a PhD thesis and a book that share the same author and the same title, and that are described as a single work in reviews of the book, are completely different works from the point of view of notability is just silly.
123:
198:
455:
I disagree, because the best reviews of the work as a dissertation are in context to creative writing in dissertation format as opposed to being a text for mathematics. There are key differences in publishing format which matter in the way the text is being discussed. I am not convinced that blurring
880:
Just throwing my two cents in - my personal recommendation here would be to create a page about the author, Piper Harron, and then have a section devoted to the thesis and book. This way it covers a wider span of information. Just based on a very short glimpse of the sourcing it looks like they're
856:
Unusually, it seems like the dissertation version meets NBOOK even though the book version may not. (Not able atm to search thoroughly for a second book review). It strikes me as extremely rare for a dissertation to even be read by anybody beyond the supervisory committee, so having any published
745:
505:
I fundamentally disagree with that assessment of academic publishing, as I actually have personal experience in that area. For one, dissertations go through a local faculty panel process of review, where the panel usually knows the author personally. Books are put through a much more thorough and
496:
367:
115:
67:
533:
1017:
had the right outcome, but we're assessing some different sources with a different lens here. (I've not had much number theory education, but Harron has certainly captured what the inside of a mathematician's head looks like better than anything I've ever seen.) —
192:
759:
552:
515:
389:
538:
Again, I disagree. I fundamentally think taking sources reviewing the dissertation in the context of its impact on doctoral dissertation writing, and merging it with another source reviewing the later book as a mathematics book is veering too closely into
330:
Notability of any work will be entangled with notability of the creator of the work. Nevertheless, there are notable books by non-notable authors and non-notable books by notable authors. Your suggestion doesn't seem to relate to the particular case of
415:. On its own, it is not enough to meet the multiple reviews requirement of criteria one of NBOOK, and none of the sources provide any substantiation for any of the four other criteria at NBOOK. Likewise 1 quality source is not enough to meet
52:. There were some good policy-oriented contributions to this discussion, on both sides, and some average ones, again on both sides. There is no agreement around how independent & significant the coverage is. Thus, no consensus.
1069:
1052:
1031:
1001:
979:
956:
934:
915:
895:
871:
848:
821:
787:
773:
729:
715:
701:
680:
640:
616:
602:
585:
465:
450:
428:
344:
325:
298:
278:
258:
61:
1009:: it seems very pedantic/anti-common sense to me that we would consider coverage of the dissertation and book to be unrelated. With the two together, GNG is met; that this level of coverage for a PhD is unusual makes it
213:
987:
I reviewed this article for DYK and one of the questions I asked myself was whether it’s about a book, a thesis, or both. In the end, I concluded that it’s both and when you look at it that way, sourcing is adequate.
666:
concerns, combined with slightly marginal review sourcing. (Note that the Ording source is not a review, and I don't think it belongs in the article; the Lamb and
Salerno sources certainly are reviews sufficient for
180:
943:. This article was created as a response to that outcome. So I think changing back to having an article about the author is a non-option. Having a page about someone who has a single notable work usually falls under
900:
That would also help to give a landing page to other work she puts out, as many academics will put out work that would warrant a mention on their article (if they have one) but might not justify its own article.
174:
379:
I have access. Phillips and Kara write about her doctoral dissertation, but not the book. They are fundamentally different publications, and so it really can't be considered significant coverage of the
170:
220:
310:. I would restore that previously deleted article to draft, merge this article into it (and delete from mainspace), and let it gestate there in case additional coverage can be found or develops.
881:
discussing her as much as her work itself. Part of this is also because I don't really like having an "about the author" section in an article, as it just feels too much like a publisher page.
520:
Editions can be "transformed" by the addition and/or removal of material, too. In the absence of sources drawing a distinction, we shouldn't do so either. Indeed, the best source we've got (
186:
857:
sources about it is impressive; the range of coverage is also enough for notability. Why not write the article about the notable diss and then mention it was also published as a book?
920:
Ah, I see that the page for her was deleted. I still think that if this is notable, then it would be best to have an author page than a page about the single work (so to speak).
441:"The wise people of Birkhäuser ... will be publishing Piper's thesis, in its entirety, as one of their volumes." That is, the book is the thesis and the thesis is the book.
266:
286:
159:
839:
Books are clearly different than dissertations. If we do not have enough about the book itself to show that the article is notable, we should not have the article.
1014:
940:
307:
246:
720:
Until further notice, I think that both of your rebukes are baseless. Also, ironic, given that this is the second time you've picked a fight on this page.
574:(4meter4, it is not necessary for you to repeat your argument in response to this comment, the closing administrator will be happy to only read it thrice.)
106:
91:
487:
of the same text, and nothing in our guidelines for wiki-notability of books indicate that all the sources have to pertain to the same edition.
230:
779:
721:
693:
238:
706:(1) You're the nominator, you don't also vote. (2) "Let me show off what an asshole I am" is not a valid deletion rationale on WP. --
86:
79:
17:
792:
Let's all try to stay on topic here. 195, if you have questions about notability criteria, please feel free to ask me on my
540:
100:
96:
1086:
927:
908:
888:
844:
40:
952:
817:
793:
755:
676:
274:
254:
750:...and indeed, as the current discussion regards the book, the CV of the author is not particularly relevant.
975:
783:
725:
697:
242:
306:
Clearly the notability of the book is entangled with that of the author, for whom the article was recently
1082:
741:
529:
492:
363:
116:
The
Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields
68:
The
Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields
36:
671:; the Molinari and Kamanos sources, while not per se reviews, I do find to contribute to notability.)
921:
902:
882:
840:
1039:. I participated in the previous deletion discussion where it was determined that the author failed
237:, next to no relevant coverage. Page was made in place of the recently deleted Piper Harron article.
995:
948:
813:
769:
751:
711:
672:
612:
581:
340:
294:
270:
250:
206:
939:
We just had an AfD determining that the author is not notable but that her dissertation might be:
971:
668:
655:
480:
1065:
867:
805:
636:
598:
548:
511:
461:
424:
385:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1081:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1048:
1024:
737:
569:
543:. This wouldn't be such a problem if we had just one more quality source on the book itself.
525:
488:
446:
406:
376:
359:
320:
57:
1040:
944:
659:
437:
The book and the thesis are essentially indivisible. According to the review published in
402:
233:; I have not yet formulated an opinion on the case myself. The IP's rationale is: "Fails
990:
801:
765:
707:
663:
608:
577:
336:
290:
688:. For anybody who wonders whether the author is a legitimate scholar of any kind: Her
809:
797:
416:
1061:
858:
632:
594:
544:
507:
457:
420:
381:
234:
153:
355:
1044:
1019:
442:
311:
53:
689:
736:
A CV page with a trace of personality may be unusual, but it's not a crime.
411:
1060:. Normally, a textbook is not notable, but this seems to be the exception.
245:) 21:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)" The recent AFD discussed in the rationale is
456:
the lines between essentially two different publications is appropriate.
358:
has about it? The Google Books preview I'm getting is not so helpful.
229:
I am creating this AfD on behalf of an IP editor who requested it at
1077:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
149:
145:
141:
205:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1089:). No further edits should be made to this page.
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
267:list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions
265:Note: This discussion has been included in the
764:Gosh, you guys, isn't that what I said? ;-p. --
287:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
219:
8:
1015:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron
941:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron
247:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
808:both have good advice.) JayBeeEll, there
284:
264:
631:Struck mine as well. Let’s keep it civil.
592:But you didn’t need to be a jerk either.
354:Is anyone able to tell how much detail
308:deleted through the appropriate process
810:might've been a more constructive way
568:. It is clear that the thesis meets
7:
231:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion
24:
1013:notable, not less. It looks like
812:to phrase your intended message.
607:Fair enough; I have struck it. --
658:argument. Slightly weak due to
524:) tells us to identify the two.
92:Introduction to deletion process
778:No, that is not what you said.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1106:
849:15:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
796:; you could also try the
716:13:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
702:13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
681:09:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
641:02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
617:02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
603:02:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
586:02:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
553:00:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
534:00:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
516:20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
497:20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
466:20:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
451:20:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
429:20:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
390:20:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
368:20:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
345:02:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
326:20:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
299:19:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
279:19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
259:19:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
1079:Please do not modify it.
1070:00:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
1053:23:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
1032:20:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
1002:19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
980:19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
957:18:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
935:18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
916:18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
896:18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
872:09:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
822:12:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
788:12:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
774:11:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
760:10:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
746:20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
730:01:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
356:Phillips and Kara (2021)
62:21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
925:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
906:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
886:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
541:WP:Original synthesis
80:Articles for deletion
926:
907:
887:
864:
841:John Pack Lambert
654:. I believe the
301:
281:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1097:
1027:
998:
993:
931:
924:
912:
905:
892:
885:
862:
861:
318:
224:
223:
209:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1087:deletion review
1025:
996:
991:
929:
922:ReaderofthePack
910:
903:ReaderofthePack
890:
883:ReaderofthePack
859:
800:. (Meanwhile,
335:book at all. --
312:
166:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1103:
1101:
1092:
1091:
1073:
1072:
1055:
1034:
1004:
982:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
949:David Eppstein
918:
898:
875:
874:
851:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
814:Russ Woodroofe
752:Russ Woodroofe
734:
733:
732:
683:
673:Russ Woodroofe
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
500:
499:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
432:
431:
395:
394:
393:
392:
371:
370:
349:
348:
347:
303:
302:
282:
271:David Eppstein
251:David Eppstein
227:
226:
163:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1102:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1021:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
999:
994:
986:
983:
981:
977:
973:
972:Chiswick Chap
969:
966:
965:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
933:
932:
923:
919:
917:
914:
913:
904:
899:
897:
894:
893:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
869:
865:
855:
852:
850:
846:
842:
838:
835:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
780:195.50.217.92
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:195.50.217.92
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
694:195.50.217.92
691:
687:
684:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
649:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
593:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
554:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
474:
467:
463:
459:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
408:
404:
400:
397:
396:
391:
387:
383:
378:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
329:
328:
327:
324:
323:
319:
317:
316:
309:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:195.50.217.92
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1078:
1076:
1057:
1036:
1023:
1010:
1006:
989:
984:
967:
928:
909:
889:
853:
836:
685:
651:
591:
573:
565:
521:
484:
476:
438:
410:
398:
351:
332:
321:
314:
313:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
73:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
669:WP:BOOKCRIT
656:WP:BOOKCRIT
481:WP:BOOKCRIT
193:free images
806:WP:GOODARG
738:XOR'easter
526:XOR'easter
489:XOR'easter
377:XOR'easter
360:XOR'easter
1083:talk page
798:tea house
794:talk page
652:Weak keep
590:I won’t.
570:WP:BKCRIT
522:MAA Focus
439:MAA Focus
412:MAA Focus
407:WP:SIGCOV
291:Shellwood
37:talk page
1085:or in a
1041:WP:NPROF
945:WP:BIO1E
660:WP:PROMO
485:editions
403:WP:NBOOK
401:. Fails
352:Question
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
1062:Bearian
992:Schwede
930:(｡◕‿◕｡)
911:(｡◕‿◕｡)
891:(｡◕‿◕｡)
802:WP:AADD
664:WP:NPOV
633:4meter4
595:4meter4
545:4meter4
508:4meter4
458:4meter4
421:4meter4
382:4meter4
199:WP refs
187:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1045:pburka
1020:Bilorv
837:Delete
686:Delete
479:Meets
443:pburka
417:WP:GNG
399:Delete
315:BD2412
171:Google
137:delete
54:Daniel
380:book.
235:WP:NB
214:JSTOR
175:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1066:talk
1058:Keep
1049:talk
1037:Keep
1026:talk
1011:more
1007:Keep
985:Keep
976:talk
968:Keep
953:talk
868:talk
854:Keep
845:talk
818:talk
804:and
784:talk
770:talk
756:talk
742:talk
726:talk
712:talk
698:talk
677:talk
662:and
637:talk
613:talk
599:talk
582:talk
566:Keep
549:talk
530:talk
512:talk
493:talk
477:Keep
462:talk
447:talk
425:talk
405:and
386:talk
364:talk
341:talk
333:this
295:talk
275:talk
255:talk
243:talk
207:FENS
181:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
947:. —
860:~ L
766:JBL
708:JBL
609:JBL
578:JBL
337:JBL
269:. —
249:. —
221:TWL
158:– (
1068:)
1051:)
1030:)
997:66
978:)
955:)
870:)
863:🌸
847:)
820:)
786:)
772:)
758:)
744:)
728:)
714:)
700:)
690:CV
679:)
639:)
615:)
601:)
584:)
576:--
551:)
532:)
514:)
495:)
464:)
449:)
427:)
388:)
366:)
343:)
297:)
289:.
277:)
257:)
201:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
1064:(
1047:(
1022:(
974:(
951:(
866:(
843:(
816:(
782:(
768:(
754:(
740:(
724:(
710:(
696:(
692:.
675:(
635:(
611:(
597:(
580:(
547:(
528:(
510:(
491:(
460:(
445:(
423:(
419:.
384:(
362:(
339:(
322:T
293:(
273:(
253:(
241:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.