Deletion of Lisa Jones (scientist)

Comment: I would love to see a solid |argument for keeping here.  So far, I'm seeing  and an argument for temporary notability (in contrast with ).  Now, there are arguments about her CAREER grant that are somewhat serious.  The NSF CAREER grant is an early career grant intended to help her eventually reach notability, but is awarded mainly for promise.  About 450 awards are made per year, see https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2020/nsf20525/nsf20525.htm.  Past AfD precedent does not establish this as enough for  (although it certainly does not detract from notability).  I'm interested in keeping articles about notable folks from underrepresented groups, but I'm very skeptical about NPROF here.  Perhaps another notability criterion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD||WP:NOHARM||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:NPROF)

Comment: The paper cites are still lower than what I'd expect for someone notable in the field under  #1 and the leadership roles mentioned don't seem to meet #6, i.e. "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". "Promising" is closer to  than "notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per  its very clear that its TOOSOON from an academic point of view - we do not create articles for everybody with a NSF grant. Even though a 1M grant looks impressive, these are very common for assistant professors and generally barely cover the professors salary, lab expenses and maybe one or two students. This is a 5 year grant, so this is ca 200k per year to put this into perspective and in the US this will also have to cover her salary. As Russ pointed out there are 450 awards per year and current notability criteria do not support this grant alone as a reason for notability. The "associated press coverage" is university press which is basically vanity press (every University has those to promote their own scientists). She works in my subfield and I did see her speak at notable conferences including Pittcon and she is clearly an impressive scientist with a promising career, but for Wikipedia it is TOOSOON (talks at conferences are not a current criterion for notability either). Furthermore, a h-index of 19 is quite common for assistant professors at her stage, so unless we make all assistant professors notable (we don't, not even full professors are notable) we would be making an exception here. The only reason for keeping this would be if there were regional or national press coverage about her research or her position in science as a black scientist. I am not specifically arguing against this article, but want to provide context and would like to point that we would first have to have a much larger discussion about professors and their notability first
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: As nom, I was a bit on the fence initially whether it was , but I think the large grant and it's associated coverage pushes the article over the line, so I'm effectively withdrawing my nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)