Deletion of Tanja M.Schuster

Comment: I'm struggling to get at most of these papers, and I don't have the full SCOPUS access needed for a full h-index check. However google usually overestimates h-indexes for those articles it has (but may be missing some), and it gives a low h-index (7/8) for the author.  also specifically clarifies ''"Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1."''. Countering that, does having lots of objects help? In a more guideline-supported query, NACADEMIC also states ''does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?'' - I can well imagine that these niche botanists all have low h-indexes, and so a low one by absolute standards might indicate a good standing comparatively. Finally, NPROF does note that it's particularly likely to have articles that aren't covered by its specific criteria, so that must be considered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: Meets  as the author of a number of well-cited (220), peer-reviewed articles and redirecting would be inappropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)