Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reema Thareja

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Thareja

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTH EGGIDICAE🥚 16:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her textbooks appear to be quite popular, so they probably pass WP:NBOOK#4. If it can be shown that her books are "the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country", then I'd support keeping this page, as I believe it's usually better to have a page about the author than about each of their notable books. (See Sole authors of notable books.) pburka (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass NPROF. The books mentioned in the list appear to be recently published college text books on regular topics with no evidence that it satisfies WP:NBOOK#4. VV 16:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book mentioned specially one from 2012 and one form 2017 are best sellers and has also been referenced. The books by her are popular and seem to pass the WP:NBOOK#4. User:Vedantbah 09:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best sellers according to whom? Because all I see is Amazon and we do not consider that to mean anything. EGGIDICAE🥚 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any significant independant reviews of the books? E.g. in an academic journal, not just Amazon reviews. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her faculty page is here. It and Google Scholar provide a range of further publications by her in comp sci journals. I don't know enough about the field to tell whether they indicate notability or not. Furius (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's an assistant prof and her gscholar page doesn't give me any indication that she's notable. TAXIDICAE💰 18:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to pass WP:NPROF. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 19:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, seems like WP:TOOSOON to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, assistant profs are only notable in rare circumstances and that is not given here. --hroest 16:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only plausible claim of notability is for textbook authorship, the textbooks are on standard topics for which there are already many other textbooks, and we have no evidence beyond the bare assertion of being a "best seller" (whatever that means) that they stand out in any way from the field. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2021 (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.