Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Riehl

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. More information and references added after nomination. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Riehl

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

Generally, Assistant Professors are not considered notable unless they are notable for something else. Natureium (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If only there were like 4 different references on the article that involve substantive coverage or interviews with this person, so we could decide whether she was notable. FFS. --JBL (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author of two well-regarded books, chosen as worthy of interviewing and profiling by multiple organizations. Manually adding up her Google Scholar h-index, I get 14, which is respectable for someone working on what is essentially the pure mathematics of pure mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAFL doesn't seem to include the AFL International Cup. But we have enough in-depth coverage of her and her work for WP:GNG, and enough hits for the title of both of her books and "syllabus" to convince me that they are widely-used enough for WP:PROF#C4. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I added another reference. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally, Assistant Professors are not considered notable, but this particular one is. Passes WP:Prof as a pure mathematician (but might be marginal as an applied one). Also does all sorts of interesting stuff, but that would not meet WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A well sourced article that demonstrates meeting WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2018 (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.