Deletion of Fiona McLaughlin

Comment: Meets rof #1 as found by DGG, also GS cites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Using Scopus, I find 31 articles. The highest cites are 119, 117, 115, 102. The journals are almost entirely journals of the highest rank in the subject.  This is enough to establish her as an authority in the subject. We normally do say that for anyone with multiple citations over 1200 -- not that I would propose such as a formal criterion, because it depends on the subject. I think nominating an article because " it is not clear that the requirements of  will be definitively addressed" is ignoring WP:BEFORE. If there is significant indication that they might be met, the appropriate thing is to look for additional references. If it is fairly clear that they will ''not'' be, then AfD is appropriate. I point out that our requirements for keeping an article do not include "definitive" proof of anything. "Reasonable", or "on balance" are closer to the usual way we do things
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)