Deletion of Emily Mower Provost

Comment: per David Eppstein and #C1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I think just about passes the threshold for notabilty, rather than being 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Her https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=2pH8BZwAAAAJ Google scholar page reports 4899 citations (pretty good but not extraordinary) and an h-index of 28 (more impressive).  Associate professor is tenured but that's definitely not the same as full professor.  It's possible the subject is a little  to be notable purely based on academic credentials.  What pushed me over the edge to keep were searches that quickly turned up the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject and her work that would establish notability for anyone, e.g., https://www.michigandaily.com/research/university-professors-talk-using-ai-technology-bipolar-disorder/ Michigan Daily, https://techxplore.com/news/2019-07-convolutional-network-align-emotion-annotations.html TechXplore and https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/trumps-harpa-smartphone-tracking-mental-illness-privacy-wont-work.html Slate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: As I wrote when accepting this as a draft in 2020, she clearly passes #C1 by having multiple heavily cited publications. Also the nomination statement is factually incorrect; she is an associate professor (tenured), not an assistant professor (untenured), although the job title is not very relevant for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I have added some of her activities on editorial board on the page. She is on several editorial boards including high impact factor journals which enters into #C8. But I am no expert in the field so happy to hear other opinions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per David Eppstein passes #C1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)