Deletion of The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields

Comment: It is clear that the thesis meets (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.  (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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BKCRIT)

Comment: Fails  and . 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 ''MAA Focus''. 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets ; 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 ''editions'' 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BOOKCRIT)

Comment: I participated in the previous deletion discussion where it was determined that the author failed . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: I believe the  argument.  Slightly weak due to  and  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 ; the Molinari and Kamanos sources, while not per se reviews, I do find to contribute to notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BOOKCRIT||WP:PROMO||WP:NPOV||WP:BOOKCRIT)