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. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Joshi[edit]

Priyanka Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

not yet notable. not an independent scientist , but a post-doc. The many 30-under-30. lists are best seen as promotional , but if they mean anything they mean , not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Forbes has a profile of her. https://www.forbes.com/profile/priyanka-joshi/?sh=7297005e4049 They have articles about her work and quote her in this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2019/11/05/powerful-people-use-more-abstract-language-according-to-new-research/?sh=15b7ead53bbf and have her listed at https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2018/01/21/from-bionic-limbs-to-dinosaurs-30-under-30-europe-in-science-and-healthcare/?sh=5b17d14e1616 The 2018 Europe 30 Under 30 In Science And Healthcare. Dream Focus 20:05, 13 January 2021‎

[1] is an unreliable source (by a forbes contributor; see WP:FORBES) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is by a staff writer so it counts. Dream Focus 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uh yeah, hence why I didn't mention it as unreliable... Whether a 60 word profile and one sentence mention is sigcov is a different question. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apart from Forbes, Vogue ranks her alongside Megan Markle, Ruth Davidson and Amal Clooney. That's notability now and our personal opinions are irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: She has her work mentioned by secondary and reliable sources. She was even included by Forbes in the list feature 300 young innovators. This is not promotional. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe Vogue and a Forbes list could put anybody in the category of notability no matter if they're a celebrity or in this case a scientist. Trillfendi (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The notoriety on Wikipedia is the existence of multiple secondary and reliable sources that cover the topic. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. "Someone is a postdoc" does not inherently strip them of notability much as not every independent scientist rises to it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Too soon. Off to a reasonable start but nowhere near passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• WP:Too soon is an essay and so has "no official status" and so is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's science citation levels [2] in a very high-cited field are not anywhere near passing WP:Prof. They may improve with time but WP:Not a crystal ball. Notability will have to be sought in the public relations activities. None of the keep votes say which category of notability they think she passes. I would be interested to know. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak delete. I do not give much weight to the 30 under 30 source, as it is (at least in this case) given for promise rather than accomplishment. The Vogue source, I do take seriously, and such mainstream coverage would normally convince me to !vote keep. But that article (like the Forbes one) is based entirely on her promise, and not yet on her WP:NPROF accomplishments; it moreover does not seem to be intellectually independent of the Forbes article. If she were to give up science tomorrow, and we were reviewing the article in 10 years, I think it would be an unambiguous delete. Since notability is not temporary, this leaves me !voting weak delete now per WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2021 (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.