Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Joshi (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I'm not sure what consensus Barkeep49 saw at the second relisting but I just don't see a consensus here right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Joshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently tagged for notability by JoelleJay and detagged by Andrew Davidson; template instructions say not to war over its inclusion, and as it has been 2 years since the last deletion discussion, it seems appropriate to renominate. It is clearly far WP:TOOSOON for notability under the WP:NPROF guideline, the question comes down to whether she is notable for being included in various early career listicle-type articles, including Forbes 30 under 30 and a similar (but perhaps weightier) item from Vogue. I am not convinced; but similarly to the last discussion, please consider my !vote here as ~~weak~~ delete. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking weak, per convincing argument by XOR'easter. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Biology, and India. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ She's the author of a chapter in this book [1], which looks like RS, but it's a snippet view and I'm not familiar with the publisher. This in the Harvard Business Review [2], weak pass at PROF, being a published academic. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a published academic does not pass any PROF criterion. What is important is to have publications with significant impact, not merely to have publications. All academics have publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's the same person. The subject is a biochemist who studies Alzheimer's. pburka (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if it's the same person. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:Prof and with WP:GNG not enough yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. She received some buzz in lay media around 2019 as being a "young scientist to watch", however, four years on it seems that this coverage would qualify as BLP1E. Her citations are ok-ish for a post-doc in this field -- Scopus has her at 250 citations across 7 papers (plus two errata), with her top 5 at 148, 47, 30, 18, and 4 citations. She has 3 first-author research papers totaling 33 citations, plus the book chapter at 47 citations. This is very, very far from the profile expected for NPROF (to put this into perspective, my PhD mentor also publishes on aggregating proteins in neurodegeneration; a student of hers who graduated last year was first or second author on two papers that total 300+ citations, and a current grad student already has ~200 citations from 3 papers she was first or second author on). JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The VOGUE(Vogue) entry (together with Forbes) seem to me to allow the entry to meet general notability (and might pass WP:Prof 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity). (Msrasnw (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Agree with Msrasnw, 30 under 30 + Vogue 25. Also, four years is just four years (with a pandemic in the middle). Joshi recently received an award for entrepreneurship from the NIA.1 2 and an award from MBC Biolabs 3. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those awards are grants for doing more work in the future. That's at best a very indirect indication that a person (or, in the latter case, a company they co-founded) is already influential. I don't think either of them help the wiki-notability case at hand. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Msrasnw and Jaireeodell. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented in the first AfD, continuing coverage in DNA India, and an invitation to speak before the Royal Institution [3], both in the last month. Satisfies GNG. pburka (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She fails NPROF, but possibly passes WP:SIGCOV, based on media/press coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure "30 under 30" type-coverage or the types of awards she has won are really GNG-significant. I'm more inclined to agree with JoelleJay that the citation record looks comparatively weak. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . This seem to meet WP:ANYBIO for having won several awards and WP:GNG.Hkkingg (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forbes "30 under 30" lists are what TV Tropes would call overly narrow superlatives. The sum total of her profile there is two sentences. That's neither in-depth coverage nor an example of an award where a mere listing would go a long way. (If you win a MacArthur, you're probably notable, even if all that the source says is that you won a MacArthur.) The Vogue item does not provide much more weight; it's a listicle of 25 women that allocates Joshi a paragraph. The DNA India item is also just a blurb, so superficial that I can't in good conscience call it "sustained coverage". Researchers giving talks is just part of what researchers do; unless it's something like being selected to give a lecture in an annual series where the selection itself is a high honor, it's not enough to argue for wiki-notability either. So, I am seeing neither a WP:PROF pass nor the significant coverage necessary to support a pass by any other means. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if Keep !voters would expand on how they think the brief "listicle" type coverage adds up to SIGCOV. I do not believe !votes focused on awards are policy-based, as the awards are all very early career (like the best PhD award in the article) or grants for future work. (I do think we all probably agree that the subject is likely to eventually become notable, but as usual, WP:CRYSTAL applies.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of opinions, but we need some more policy-based discussion about this person's notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not seeing a pass of NPROF, and I'm unconvinced that Forbes is enough for notability. A lot of people get on Forbes lists (hundreds, given the ten categories and multiple geographies; versus thousands of nominations, so the chance of winning if nominated isn't that bad). It can be argued that the selection for Forbes/Vogue is more about being the sort of person who gets yourself nominated than being truly notable in a Wikipedia sense. NPROF is a far better measure because it doesn't depend on the subject's attitude to their own publicity. She was clearly a very successful student and post-doc, so maybe it's still WP:TOOSOON? Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Vogue article as a source of notability: With respect to the list of The Vogue 25: Meet The Women Shaping 2018. I think all have Wikipedia pages (except for: HANNAH ANDERSON). So it would seem a bit odd to delete this one. Someone reading that page could want to look up these people and it would seem to be odd to have the academic missing. I think Vogue notability is a different thing from WP:Prof notability but... (Msrasnw (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Even if avoiding mild oddity were a policy-based reason to have an encyclopedia article, this presumes that anyone reads back issues of Vogue from half a decade ago... XOR'easter (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think XOR'easter summed it up best. This person doesn't pass WP:NPROF, and if someone tries to take the GNG route, those Forbes and Vogue X under Y articles are not really suitable for establishing notability, in part because those become expansive indiscriminate listings, but also because what is there doesn't really amount to WP:SIGCOV. Those can be an indication to keep an eye on a person in coming years, but we have WP:CRYSTAL policy when it comes to speculating like that in the here and now. As I was reviewing this AfD and the subject, I have to admit the keep WP:!VOTEs really didn't give me any substance to work with and would be something I would not be able to weight very much in assessing WP:CONSENSUS so far. KoA (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after relist on GNG. I'll just reiterate that this pretty clearly doesn't meet GNG either. WP:NOTNEWS is policy, which deals with the kind of fluff those 30 over 30 type lists from Forbes and Vogue are. That's not the level of WP:SIGCOV needed to satisfy GNG, but instead are the type of sources often used as WP:PUFFERY that can catch people, including editors, off guard. KoA (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we're closing to consensus than we were after the first relist but not quite there. Relisting again given that this is already a second nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as is failing WP:Prof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portwoman (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a big fan of basing our content on listicle-like publicity coverage but that's the fault of using GNG for notability, not the fault of the subject. As long as we're using GNG, I think the Forbes and Vogue coverage and the Indian newspaper followup coverage are in-depth and reliably published, and I think the Forbes and Vogue coverage are independent enough of each other to not be a problem with respect to WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is clear consensus that WP:PROF is not met, but opinion is evenly divided as to whether presented coverage is enough for GNG. Further comments and analyses of this question would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her publication is respectable for a young biochemist (I'm a biochemist myself), but it's nothing special. She may become notable in the future, but she's far from it at present. Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this Lecture at the Royal Institution the sort of thing that might meet WP:Prof 1e or more generally help with notablity Royal Institution: Metabolites: the key to treating Alzheimer's? - with Priyanka Joshi Sun 07 May 2023 or this [4]? Best wishes Msrasnw (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, giving talks is a WP:MILL activity that all professors engage in. Exceptionally high profile talks can occasionally indicate WP:NPROF C1. In this case, it looks like the Royal Institution hosts talks every few days [5], and I don't see anything to indicate that this one was especially high profile. The BNS page indicates that the talk is hosted by the RI, so I think this is the same talk -- I'm not sure why the dates differ, but perhaps the talk time was moved? In any case, this talk looks to me like the kind of activity that helps to build academic notability, but which is not sufficiently high profile to grant it by itself. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per David Eppstein. I think these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Metabolites: The key to treating Alzheimer's where Priyanka delves into the deeper biology of Metabolite and protein homeostasis...comes from reliable resources Royal Institution. From Dinosaurs To Bionic Limbs: The 2018 Europe 30 Under 30 In Science And Healthcare where Priyanka Joshi created a small molecule library that's the basis for starting a drug discovery program at the Centre for Misfolding Diseases at University of Cambridge. And it comes from Forbes meets GNG. The Vogue 25: Meet The Women Shaping 2018], Priyanka Joshi listed in Vogue 25. i think Vogue is a reliable resource. Gothamk (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that satisfies GNG. The first link is to an event description for a lecture already discussed above as WP:MILL. For the remaining ones, simply being in an RS does not equal notability. Those listings of X under Y are typically pretty indiscriminate and cover a large number of people rather than SIGCOV. This doesn't address the problems brought up with those sources above. KoA (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.