Deletion of Lydia Bean

Comment: as restructured by {{u|TJMSmith}}. With a well-reviewed book, a decent citation profile and some press attention to her research (e.g., https://www.vox.com/2015/11/13/9729884/creation-care-evangelicals-climate-change), there's a reasonable case for  entirely independently of her run for the Texas state house
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per  based on the citation record of her works (see Google Scholar profile) and the notable book she authored (multiple independent reviews). I've attempted to restructure the article to focus on these points as alluded to by Eppstein above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: for , not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NPOL)

Comment: Passes . I found coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, Vox, GBooks, JStor, Stanford and a couple of specialist sites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: based on 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: She obviously doesn't pass  and if kept her article should be edited to reflect that. But I found (and added to the article) plenty of reviews for her book, and she has another highly-cited co-authored book chapter ("Cultural mechanisms and killing fields", in ''The Many Colors of Crime''), giving her a borderline case for  despite her assistant-professor rank. An alternative possibility, possibly helpful in preventing this from being an election soapbox, would be to create an article on the book (which has enough reviews to appear independently notable) and redirect this article there pending the outcome of the election
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:PROF)

Comment: based on 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)