Deletion of Sam Giles

Comment: Although it may be  for real academic notability, her Google Scholar citations are on a steeply rising curve, so I think she'll get there soon. And she appears to have attracted enough media attention for  notability instead
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:GNG)

Comment: Thanks everybody for responding to my comments and questions, and apologies for being a bit of a pain with all these queries. It is kind of you all to reply in such detail. Before replying to your comments, I decided to look into more behind the notability guideline otability (academics) and also into the h-index. This individual has a h-index of 8, which is far too low and from the mark of the rof#C1. Maybe I'm being a little too cynical and stuck in my old ways, but I must admit that based on these guidelines I really don't see how this individual passes these tests. What do you make of this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:P)

Comment: The spirit of and reason behind the |academic notability guideline is that researchers can be noteworthy because they have done influential work, even if we don't have biographical material devoted to them specifically. I think that the science-media coverage and the L'Oréal-UNESCO award are indicators enough for that, in this case. (Postdoctoral fellowships generally don't count for all that much in the academic-notability evaluation, but getting half a million pounds from the Royal Society doesn't exactly ''hurt,'' either.) Nor does the article read as particularly promotional; to me, it's a pretty humdrum academic bio
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: appears to clearly pass criterion 1 of . It does seem somewhat surprising and sad for a new editor to start off by trying to remove an article with their very first logged-on edit, rather than adding to the encyclopedia.  is only an essay but is worth reading, and is partly relevant here. There are undoubtedly many notable palaeontologists, and other scientists of all disciplines, all eras, both sexes, who ought to have articles and haven't yet. Plenty to work on in a positive direction, and much more rewarding than taking time to propose deletions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: I agree the sourcing could be a little better on this article, but I think she meets notability. Also noting per discussion by Valereee above that the circumstances of this AFD seem to be a bit suspicious. I'm a big advocate of trying not to |bite the newcomers but creating a new account at Wikipedia |just to start a delete discussion is not a thing we should encourage. Please participate and contribute to the encycopedia first, then maybe move up to admin things like deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:SPA)