Deletion of Debra A. Brock

Comment: Notability per  not yet evident
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: No  sources indicate notability. The lede is just a list of degrees and a lab where she worked. Awards is just a grant with a list of publications, and the current research is just a link to basic primary studies. Nothing that qualifies for  beyond someone who became a non-professor scientist and published. Seeing as the article creator has a https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rv_mather&diff=761969727&oldid=761969224, their edits would pretty much be entirely deleted anyways, which would blank the page. This subject is also a post-doc, where the bar would be even higher for notability I'd think
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:PROF||WP:COI)

Comment: This scientist does in fact meet one of the notability criteria (), specifically Criterion 1. Her research discovering "farming" behavior in the unicellular eukaryote ''Dictyostelium discoideum'' is arguably a significant discovery given that she and her work were featured in notable scientific media, such Nature Podcasts and Science Magazine, and in popular media, such as BBC, Wired, and USA Today. Her work has been cited 77 times since 2011 and has even been referenced in published texts. Regarding her authorship, Nature, Nature Communications, Development, Genes and Development, and PNAS are all high quality journals in which she has published, which boosts her notability. Also, her h-index of 16 is very good given that she doesn't have her own lab and is absolutely comparable to new professors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: There's been a lot of smoke blown in the keep !votes so far. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but please bear in mind that this isn't our first rodeo: the |notability guideline for academics are designed to give us a lot of latitude in keeping academics with notable work wouldn't otherwise stand a chance of meeting |Wikipedia's standard criteria for inclusion. That long-standing |consensus is unlikely to be swayed by special pleading in this case. With that said, I do think there's a case to be made that Brock's discovery of amoeba "farming" bacteria meets #C1. It was published in ''Nature'', and while the number of citations is surprisingly low (77 cites in 6 years) it's still respectable, and it was ''very'' widely reported on in the popular science press: https://phys.org/news/2013-09-amoebas-farm-bacteria-crops-wild.htmlhttp://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/24/the-bacteria-that-turn-amoebas-into-farmers/https://www.wired.com/2011/01/bacteria-farming-amoeba/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421100822.htmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/25obamoeba.htmlhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/amoeba-animal-farmers/http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/01/worlds-smallest-farmershttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12227168. Most of these articles quote Brock extensively. However, if kept, the article would need a thorough rewrite to remove the overt promotionalism in its current version. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:PROF)

Comment: I've had a chance to take a proper look at this case and found the following. Her citation record is as indicated above, h-index of 16, which, although we often take as borderline, must be judged in light of a number of other mitigating factors. First, biology and the biomedical sciences are among the highest citation fields and her sum total of ~500 is not at all out of the ordinary for researchers in these fields. Moreover, all of Dr. Brock's highest cited articles, shown at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=6AKJicMAAAAJ&hl=en GS, appear to represent work done either as a technician or a grad student under the direction of senior faculty, first Richard Gomer and later Joan E. Strassmann. We defer to seniority here in that we recognize that such papers are not the independent contributions of the student. Though Brock has been involved in science for decades, it seems she only recently earned her doctorate and is currently a postdoc in Strassmann's lab. I think Xxan's assessment of  is spot on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: A GS h-index of 16 is nowhere near enough to pass rof in a very highly cited field. Off to a good start but oo soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:T)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)