Deletion of Karen Franklin

Comment: Don't think the nominator or other evaluators did any |serious homework here, although in their defense, the previous article (now fixed) was largely based on  sources such as KF's own website, plus linking to her specific papers, which is ill-advised in -type articles, discussing her work (sourcing it to Franklin's ''own'' research -- which is really . Now the article is better. She was http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/14/us/homophobia-often-found-in-schools-data-show.html quoted in the NY Times, http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/karen-franklin-phd described in Psychology Today as an expert, was interviewed at length on http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136433233/expert-panel-weighing-the-value-of-a-test-for-psychopaths All Things Considered, http://www.theguardian.com/profile/karen-franklin described as an award winning researcher in The Guardian, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/franklin.html was interviewed on Frontline, to name a few sources. Plus she won three prestigious awards in her field. Strong keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PRIMARY||WP:BLP||WP:OR)

Comment: Article is centered around academic accomplishments but the citation record is a bit slim for #C1. We have no evidence of passing other criteria of , nor sufficiently in-depth mainstream media about the subject that would pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: GS h-index of 9 not yet up to scratch for rof#C1 in well cited area. Not widely cited. Too early
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)