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.
Appears to fail WP:Academic and WP:GNG. Not overly promotional but does read like a CV. No evidence that papers are notable, and publications do not make a subject notable without more (per WP:Academic)
‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:PROF#C1 (and has worked on significant research projects). Reading like a CV is grounds for editing, not deletion.
XOR'easter (
talk) 18:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as although the article needs some work, the subject appears to be notable.
Kj cheetham (
talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Paucity of sole-author contributions makes me wonder if independent achievement has been demonstrated.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC).reply
Keep She has 7436 citations on Google Scholar. Also, in some fields it is almost impossible to write sole authored papers and almost all papers have multiple authors. She is the first author on paper that was quoted 647 times.
Lainx (
talk) 17:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Her list of publications at Google Scholar convinces me that
WP:NPROF is met.
Papaursa (
talk) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (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.