Deletion of Laure Zanna

Comment: No pass of rof#C1 on basis of GS citations in this very highly cited field. oo soon now, but matters may have changed in five years time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:T)

Comment: without prejudice against later re-creation if her notability improves, per . Draftification would be acceptable but I'd recommend against it because the draft would likely need both several years waiting (for her to become notable) and significant rewriting (to write about the stuff she would have become notable for) before it could become acceptable. Puffing the article with minor things like early-career and best-paper awards and detailed descriptions of individual research papers sourced to those individual research papers are signs that the more significant awards, works by other people that cover her research in-depth, or other ways she could become notable haven't happened yet. As the discussion above suggests, the citation record is promising but not yet at the level needed for #C1 in a high-citation field, her "fellow" title is routine for all Oxbridge faculty rather than being the kind of fellow that passes #C3, and there is no indication that she passes any of the other criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)

Comment: Adequate evidence that the subject passes  #1 and #3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: per nom, Xxanthippe, and My very best wishes. Fails  and . We can move it to draft if others think it is . Being "young" or on "a rising trajectory" are not valid keep arguments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: basically per Icewhiz and Joe Roe. (At worst, unobjectionable content and a rising trajectory would be a case for |draftifying until such time as wiki-notability is obvious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: H-index is around 15 - which yes - is marginal for the field - but is also fairly high for a young scholar. Furthermore - it is a very solid 15 - evenly spread out, article number 20 has 10 citations and she's getting cited at a fast rising pace (2016 - 50, 2017 - ~100, 2018 - 160. 2019 - 160 to date) - which is a likely indication that this h-index will probably rise (e.g. recent 2017 papers are at 13, 13, 11, and 10 citations - so likely they'll push past 15 soon given they're getting cited at ~5/year so far) - it doesn't take a big crystal ball here to see a h-index of around 20 soon. When we add to this that a google-news search shows she's getting quoted quite a bit in mainstream press (e.g. New York Times, Guardian, Popular Mechanics, etc.) - you also see a reach here beyond academia. Does she clearly pass #1? No, but she's close. Does she pass #7? Possibly. Does she pass GNG? Probably not (but hard to tell given all the times she's quoted - need to sift through and see if she's profiled as well). However the ensemble here as a whole - very close to our notability threshold (possibly over), and on a clearly rising trajectory - is per  worth preserving
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NPROF||WP:NOTPAPER)