Deletion of Ayelet Gneezy

Comment: her work has been featured in The Economist https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2012/05/05/conscience-v-commerce ("a team of researchers led by Ayelet Gneezy...") and the Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2018/03/having-your-smartphone-nearby-takes-a-toll-on-your-thinking, https://hbr.org/2014/05/when-to-make-a-promise-to-your-boss-and-when-not-to. These are articles about three different pieces of work, suggesting that she is notable in her own right and not simply because of one particular study that she was involved in. For me it's a clear keep on both #C1 and #C7 grounds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Lack of |in-depth coverage from multiple RS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: Her work is widely cited.  And becasue the topics are appealing, she has been covered in the press for years.  Point is, she's not just a talking head reporters ring up for a comment, the articles are about research she had done.  Such coverage, even when brief,  can be  in a way that just being asked for a comment is not. For example:   Financial Times 2013 https://www.ft.com/content/fd79cc8e-0467-11e3-a8d6-00144feab7d ''"Ayelet Gneezy, Uri Gneezy, Leif D Nelson and Amber Brown, also marketing academics, experimented with different pricing schemes for people invited to buy photographs of themselves on a rollercoaster.   Some people were told that half the money they paid would go to a charity for sick children. Some were invited to pay whatever they wished. But it was those two options in combination that worked wonders: if patrons were invited to pay what they pleased, and told that half their payment would go to charity, revenues and profits surged.   But this scheme seems to rely on a cognitive illusion. It could equally be described thus: “we’ll grab half of your charitable donation and give you this photo in exchange; the more you give to the charity, the more we’ll take.” Not so appealing.  And there is a twist. Gneezy et al found that, while profits jumped, fewer people actually bought photos if they were told half the money was going to charity. Were the people who would have paid a little and taken the photograph afraid of looking cheap once the charity was mentioned? Perhaps they found it easier to walk away."''   I won't try everyone's patience with more, similar examples.   But her studies get this kind of coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: The unsourced content suggests that the author may pass  #1. Supposedly, her famous paper is http://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/prof-leif-nelson-honored-pay-what-you-want-pricing-research/ award-winning, and https://scholar.harvard.edu/vincentjelani/publications/benefits-and-costs-sharing-social-responsibility-businesses cited. Are there academic AFD discussants who can shed some light on this for me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)