Deletion of Kate Killick

Comment: pace'' . The current sourcng is all |primary. Like Darth guy above, a  search found no third party, independent reliable coverage demonstrating notability.  clearly applies: the chances of an ECR with three papers uder their belt being independently notable in their field is ''phenonomnally'' unlikely (although I grant not impossible, and not perennially).{{pb}}Disclosure: Arguably, special:diff/925997783|I was brought here by {{u|Schlossbergfes}}'s ing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS||WP:PTS||WP:BEFORE||WP:TOOSOON||WP:CANVAS)

Comment: Sadly, fails . I agree it looks to be . If there are articles on male scientists of a similar early career stage, they should be nominated for deletion. The creating editor seems to misunderstand the level of notability required for academics - just being published is not enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per Russ Woodroofe. I think part of the problem here is that  criterion 1 is (perhaps intentionally) vague. People could easily read "significant impact" different ways. To clarify the community thinking on the criterion, the  "specific criteria notes" note that significant impact typically means "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". That threshold is not met here. As Russ Woodroofe noted, it's |too soon for an article on this topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Citation count is light for  C1, and I don't find anything meeting other criteria -- at the very least, it's .  Originator of the article seems to be mistaken about notability requirements, saying in the history "author is published, clearly passing the criteria for an article".  And 150 citations wouldn't be enough in math (an especially low citation field), let alone biology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per  and . She has respectable citation counts for a postdoc, but postdocs (and assistant professors and the UK/Irish equivalents) are usually too early in their career to have attracted enough attention to their works for academic notability, and Killick does not appear to be an exception to this general rule
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The three Google Scholar sources posted above are just links to the paper. The Irish Times reference is an opinion piece of which Killick's name is only mentioned once among many, many other names. I cannot locate any |significant coverage from |reliable sources that indicate |notability. On another note, and this may not belong here, I do not appreciate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: As others have set out in detail, fails . Another case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:TOOSOON)

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