Deletion of Linda van Roosmalen

Comment: Passes neither  nor . In addition to the points already made above, news coverage of the subject is pretty much nonexistent. Has potential for -notability in the future, as the topics of research are the type that tend to attract media interest, but not yet there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: assistant professor, has published papers - but no |secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the standard of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:PROF)

Comment: Doesn't seem to pass . There is no evidence that she has published highly cited papers. She also hasn't receive any major awards. I don't think this bio meets WP standard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Not important enough to pass  nor . See comments above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: Notable per . Search as "van Roosmalen, L", in addition to "Linda van Roosmalen". Check http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22van+Roosmalen%2C+L%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Google with 320 additional hits and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22van+Roosmalen%2C+L%22&btnG=Search Google Scholar with 80 more hits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per Crusio and Eppstein: not notable as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: All academics publish, so the fact that she has published papers alone does not make her notable (my grad student has published papers, too...) To know whether a paper is cited or not, you can use Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science. Knowing David, he has checked this and I see no reason to doubt his statement that her papers are not highly cited. She's still young, may become notable later, but Wikipedia is not a |crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)