Deletion of Kuiljeit Uppaal

Comment: speedily if #G11|G11 applies. It's a promotional bio-blurb, with no evidence that  or any other standard is passed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:PROF)

Comment: Unambiguously promotional, plausible #G11 speedy. No valid claim to academic notability. Her claims to have invented the academic study of image management also do not hold water, as this topic has been studied at least since the 1970s
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: no claim to passing  or , sources are pure PR. Her most highly cited paper has 3 citations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: Does not pass any of the criteria for a notable academic . Google scholar shows that her papers have been cited only 15 times since 2015 https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aDsGt5gAAAAJ&hl=en. Does not pass WP:GNG either. Agree the article seems promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. I did wonder if could pass anything under  as books are mentioned, but for for instance https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811033186 I'm not convinced of the level of her involvement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per nomination. An egregiously promotional article about a non-notable academic. I have no idea what an "image scientist" ''is'' but it sounds like a vague marketing term rather than a formal discipline. There's absolutely no evidence of anything that would pass  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:ACADEMIC)