Deletion of Jessica Melbourne-Thomas

Comment: Sorry, this is . This doesn't pass GNG. The reliable, independent and secondary coverage is restricted to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (and its reprints) and the ABC net radio talk. Both of them talk more about the program rather than the person. More importantly, the coverage is limited to one particular event, making this a BLP1E. The sources from her workplace do not count as "independent". I tried to fall back on  but an h-index of 8 is just low at the moment. Neither has she won any notable academic award or is a distinguished prof. Delete now but no prejudice to recreating it later when she is actually notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)

Comment: Has not yet the citation record to satisfy rof,  but may do so one day. oo soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:T)

Comment: from reading the conversations above, some editors may get the impression that all of the papers mentioned are . This is not the case, The Sydney Morning Herald is "the oldest continuously published newspaper in Australia and a national online news brand.1 The newspaper is published six days a week. It is available at outlets in Sydney, regional New South Wales, Canberra, and South East Queensland (Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Sunshine Coast)." (taken from article lead
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:LOCAL)

Comment: I've just added three more secondary sources from popular media describing her accomplishments in advocating for women in science. Also I think the Rhodes is inarguably a major award. In aggregate I think she passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: She may be notable under -7, due to her work for the the Homeward bound leadership training programme
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: One well-cited paper ("Climate change cascades") and an h-index of 10 on Google scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zPsZKPkAAAAJ is a good start, but  for #C1. The tall poppy is too local for #C2. And I don't see the mainstream media attention (for instance, reports on some of her research, or on her award) that would let this get by on  grounds instead of ; the link given by FRdJ is independent-enough of the subject, but doesn't actually say much about her, and in any case we need multiple nontrivial independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF)