Deletion of Barbara Ramsay Shaw

Comment: This is a slam-dunk on  criterion #1, as any minimal checking would have found. Some journal pubs from Web of Science: Biochem. (1990) 201 citations, Pharma. Res. (2002) 137 citations, Toxicol. & Appl. Pharmacol. (1982) 129 citations, Biochem. Pharma. (2000) 114 citations, and the list goes on. Given her ''very notable'' publication record, her position, etc., it is likely she meets other criteria too, but these would just be incidental and not necessary to check for the discussion here. Glaringly notable. Respectfully
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Based on collective edits of the nominator in this case, what seems clear is the following: (1) With all due respect, nom is entirely ignorant of academic conventions and standards, especially as they apply to  under whose criteria this article is being evaluated. In particular, s/he seems incapable of accepting/understanding that (a) Prof. Shaw's research has had a glaringly obvious impact on her field, as evidenced by numerous highly-cited papers, (b) academic governing bodies, even at the highest-ranking institutions, ''accept'' precisely this sort of evidence as proof of the notability of one's scholarship, in fact it is essentially the necessary and sufficient condition in the hard sciences (in which the subject works), (c) they do ''not'' consider any sort of outside validation to be necessary for judging scholarship impact/notability, e.g. mention in the popular media, in review papers, in non-technical publications, in news or trade magazines, or anything else the nom might claim is necessary, (d) WP has a long, established history of reasoning the notability of professor-type articles along these same lines because there does not appear to be a more objective way of doing so, and (e) there's no reason to insist we should now adopt a wildly different standard for this article alone. (2) This discussion is ripe with , suggesting  concerns. I'm afraid that further engaging the nom in any sort of debate will be a waste of time (e.g. we now have to demonstrate that the H-index is not defined for "words", see
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:IDHT||WP:NPOV)

Comment:  sets a high bar, and she hasn't met it.  Just having a certain number of hits in Google scholar of a few journal publications isn't enough - it has to be shown, through reliable independent sources, that the academic's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline," and I don't see even any assertion of that, let alone proof.  (I do realise that that is only one of several possible criteria listed at , it's just that it seems to be the only one that might apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: As noted by John Z, meets  criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment). Very likely meets other criteria as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)