Deletion of Corinna Löckenhoff

Comment: at request of subject. She does have a good GS citation record in the high-cited field of pop-psychology but otherwise of routine notability. rof#C3 is not passed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corinna_L%C3%B6ckenhoff&type=revision&diff=934678398&oldid=934676456 This revert on the basis of COI reintroduced multiple factual errors. The first two I noticed were that the subject's affiliation is now listed incorrectly, and a co-edited book has become a co-authored one. I dislike COI edits as much as anybody, but this is a case where the subject made changes in good faith and provided citations (e.g., https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/rising/corinna-e-lockenhoff.htmlhttps://www.geron.org/press-room/press-releases/2016-press-releases/647-the-gerontological-society-of-america-selects-2016-fellows). This is definitely a situation where more consideration is required, and |blindly following default procedure makes things worse. I have https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corinna_L%C3%B6ckenhoff&type=revision&diff=935272214&oldid=935198526 refactored the "Career" section to make it focus on the standard topics of an academic biography rather than reporting individual grants. This was not a major time investment on my part, and I wouldn't regret it if we decide to follow Dr. Löckenhoff's first choice and delete the page. I think there's a good argument made in the !votes above to the effect that, while she may clear the bar set by |our notability guideline for academics, her wiki-notability is not so overwhelming that it should mean we override her request
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:PROF)

Comment: Evidently notable by citation record for . No subject objection
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: I said that I'd reconsider {{tq|if the subject ''unambiguously'' withdraws her deletion request}}. She has https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCorinna_L%C3%B6ckenhoff&type=revision&diff=935532723&oldid=935531614 now done so. Consequently, that's no longer a factor. I still think everything else I wrote above applies: decent case for #C1 just by citation numbers, but not great sourcing to actually base an article on, and #C3 not really coming into play. So, my re-evaluation lands me where I hypothesized that it would were the situation different, because now the situation has changed. ({{u|Levivich}}, thanks for pinging me. In turn, I will ping {{u|Yngvadottir}} and {{u|Ealdgyth}}, who have "per XOR" in their comments below
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: per others; h-index and citation count pass |PROF criterion 1 and the subject no longer has concerns; great turnaround. Pet peeve, but it would be helpful if some experienced editors in this discussion read MOS:LISTGAP for future reference
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)