Deletion of Londa Schiebinger

Comment: and add references.  If citations can be provided for even half of the accomplisments claimed, this subject easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: Meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sauthors=%22Londa+Schiebinger%22 indicates notability. As pointed out by DGG and Crusio, also meets  criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: meets  criteria, but may fall under its lack-of-sources caveat if no sources can be found. Needs a complete rewrite, regardless
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: This is a complete mess. The author has a |conflict of interest, the article asserts no notability and there is only one source. I'm tempted to put an A7 speedy tag on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: If nominators would follow |the instructions before nominating for deletion we wouldn't have to waste our time on reviewing such nominations of obviously notable subjects, as shown by Guest9999's Google News archive search
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Named chair, explicitly mentioned in . A rapid check like DGG did would have saved us all the time and effort of this unnecessary AfD. COI, of course, is a reason to edit, not delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: for now. I think he subject meets all of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The available sources (e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5707/210?ijkey=pY1ubvaAee%2F6U Book review in Science Magazine, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/jul/19/gender.uk1 discussion of work in The Guardian and http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=Londa+Schiebinger&btnG=Search&hl=en&um=1 many more) make it apparent that the individual meets the |general notability guideline as well as the |specific guideline for people. However, as it stands the article is a |POV mess, if it is not cleaned up and sourced then it should at least be pared down to a basic |stub
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:BIO||WP:NPOV||WP:STUB)