Deletion of Dr. Anna Frisch

Comment: this is a great c.v., but |we are not a webhost.  I'm sympathetic to keeping the article, but I'd like to see actual work rescuing this article and cutting out the cruft and |unsourced BLP violations.  Many of the claims are so over the top, that I'd expect she'd surely have more media attention. If it's not |fixed quickly, it probably will be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WEBHOST||WP:BLP||WP:HEY)

Comment: A promotionally-written article with its main editor, Xmxpro1, reverting any attempt to make it less promotional. From the citation record, the subject does not appear to pass . The only nontrivial source given is a local story about a medical patient who happens to have been treated by Frisch; there is no nontrivial coverage in it of Frisch herself, so no reason to believe she passes  independently of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

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

Comment: No keep vote explains how she meets . She has some academic publications out, but that's not enough - we would need to show they are extremely numerous, popular or well received. I'll ping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Absolutely non-notable. Publications listed in the article seem to be all there is, not a selection. I used the Web of Science to evaluate her citation record. as "A. Kropiwnicka", WoS lists 13 publications, most of them meeting abstracts. Only two have ever been cited (h=2), one a respectable 122 times (Watala et al. 2004), but she's only a minor author on that one, the other just 15 times (Malecka-Panas et al 2002) and she's a minor author on that one, too. "Anna Frisch" renders 5 hits, three of them cited (the other two are meeting abstracts). Combined with previous, h=4, total cites 188. This is miles below what we usually take as evidence for notability here. Given that she's a practicing physician and only an adjunct ''assistant'' professor, this is about what I would expect. Listed awards are minor/negligible. Unless somebody comes up with evidence that she passes GNG, there's no chance she'll pass ACADEMIC anytime soon. PS: Xmxpro1, you're right that James Andrews does not pass ACADEMIC either, but he's a clear pass of GNG. Apart from that, please read  and , thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NPA)

Comment: Sources not there. A GS h-index of at most 4 is nowhere sufficient to pass rof
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: No evidence has been furnished that her academic papers are highly cited per . The news media attention to a chance thyroid cancer diagnosis focused on the patient, mentioning her only in passing. If strong evidence is furnished by an editor with medical experience that her papers are highly cited, I will reconsider
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)