Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Polka


 * 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 keep. Strong consensus that wp:PROF is satisfied as per sourcing and pre-eminent position. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Polka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like a CV, and I can't see that it passes WP:NACADEMIC. Specifically, the "Fellowships and honors" listed don't look like "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Bishonen &#124; talk 08:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment It does read a bit like a CV, but that's fixable and not relevant to this discussion. I think its worth mentioning that there has already been a discussion on the article's talk page regarding "self promotion". Quite a few relevant points are put forward by GerardM, Opto kitty and Dario. ThisIsAnAdvert also puts forward their view. Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep "Polka is quoted in articles in Nature and Science". I think that the readers of these top division journal's would assume that the journal quotes notable scientists - I do. Victuallers (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Request to remove on 15 August failed and deletion is not going to happen, because Polka has a respectable position as executive director of ASAPbio and got fellowships as well. She has even her own category @Commons, Greetings and salutations from Amsterdam by Klaas `Z4&#x241f;` V 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding WP:NACADEMIC
 * Number 2 - Dr Polka has won the ASCB Americal Society for Cell Biology (a UK premier institution in her discipline) award for her graduate work. Dr Polka is one of 20 fellows who ahve won the Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Medical Research WP:Jane_Coffin_Childs_Memorial_Fund_for_Medical_Research.
 * Number 7 - Dr Polka has achieved a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, in improving research culture. This has received national and international attention in major scientific press (5 authored articles in Nature and science). She was an invited & initial founder ASAPBio effort. I further note that Dr Polka has 6,000 twitter followers which is a quantified metric, in support of the view that she is reaching beyond an academic bubble and influencing the wider community . Dr Polka is also invited to sit on panels and other major discussion forums to further understanding of the issues affecting the progression of early career researchers (these are referenced in her article).
 * These are cited clearly in the Wikipedia page which notes here past and present achievements. This article should be kept for the benefit of wikipedia readers.
 * In addition to these referenced comments, the editors of Wikipedia should re-consider NP academic and how single editors can trigger a deletion request based upon limited interpretation of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. BenBritton (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PROF on account of being a go-to expert for her area, multiple times by reliable publications. I don't think "number of Twitter followers" is a number we should consider one way or the other (people get followed by spambots for no fault of their own, etc.), but notability is adequately established on other grounds. In addition, ASAPbio has been adequately covered, and that counts in her favor. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Polka is widely acknowledged as one of the leaders in the preprint revolution that's changing how scholarly communication functions. I edited the article to further clarify the role she had in this space and on the impact of this initiative. Because of this initiative, she's been featured on mainstream and specialized press, including the New York Times, Wired and Nature. If she doesn't pass BLP notability as a scientist and scholarly communication expert, I frankly don't know who else does.--DarTar (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above arguments Duncan.Hull (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: prizes, and key role in science publishing culture. Pam  D  09:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with the keep rationales posted by others above. The article probably needs some cleanup, but it should not be deleted. --Krelnik (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject is notable as noted in the discussion above, and the article isn't so bad it needs a complete re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.