Deletion of Julia Shaw (psychologist)

Comment: I'm skeptical of the arguments that  isn't applicable here.  She's done one research study that got a significant amount of pop science coverage.  Simply having her research study well-covered wouldn't allow GNG to apply.  However, the Wired piece and the Tagesspiegel piece are substantial coverage of her (and not just her work), so it meets GNG. That said, it would be nice if the article relied on those references and not her LinkedIn profile
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: per above. Clearly lacking notability, fails  et al
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: What editor {{u|Johnpacklambert}} said. + Subject of article is non-notable and fails , , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Multiple in-depth RS on her work exists, which meets  even if it doesn't technically meet . https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/02/08/planting-false-memories-fairly-easy-psychologists-find.htmlhttps://www.wired.co.uk/article/false-memory-syndrome-false-confessions-memorieshttps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q8d7x/memory-hacker-implant-false-memories-in-peoples-minds-julia-shaw-memory-illusionhttps://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2016/09/23/can-your-memory-be-hacked.html, among others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMIC)