Deletion of Emily Martin (anthropologist)

Comment: A https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=emily+martin+anthropology&btnG=&oq=emily+martin+an GS search shows several publications cited more than 100 times - which should pass #C1 (a guideline independent of ). Also held a named chair at Johns Hopkins (#C5). https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=emily+martin WorldCat is helpful as well, as there are multiple books held in several hundred libraries. It looks like she passes  on the basis of book reviews of https://www.google.com/search?q=woman+in+the+body+book+review&ie=&oe= ''The Woman in the Body'' and https://www.google.com/search?q=bipolar+expeditions+book+review&ie=&oe= ''Bipolar Expeditions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per above. I contested the original prod and added critical reviews of her book, establishing  notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: because no valid argument for deletion has been advanced. The article doesn't have to "assert" notability. It's |up to the nominator to assess the subject's notability, including checking against relevant SNGs, before presenting an argument for deletion. In this case that doesn't seem to have happened, as per {{u|EricEnfermero}} the subject clearly passes  and probably . &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)