Talk:Andrew Pollard (immunologist)

Notability and sourcing

There is a problem with this article at the moment. It does not clearly establish Pollard's notability. either under WP:NBIO or under WP:NACADEMIC. I strongly suspect that he is in fact notable, so I am not putting this up for deletion, but better sources are needed.

Let's look at the currently cited sources:

Source assessment table prepared by User:DESiegel

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Hindu 24 July 2020	Major newspaper		~ Confirms his position and talks about his work and its significance but only rather briefly, a single paragraph. No biographical detail. Intro to an interview.	~ Partial
Oxford Vaccine Group page	CV posted by his organization, probably written or approved by Pollardf	probably checked by the group	Lists his career accomplishments	✘ No
BBC News 20 July 2020	Major news outlet; however, info in quotes is not independent.	Major news outlet	Quotes Pollard and describes vaccine work carried out by his group, but says nothing about his particular contribution.	✘ No
Reuters, August 25, 2020	Major news outlet; however, info in quotes is not independent.	Major news outlet	Quotes Pollard, but says nothing about his work beyond the quotes, which are all about the timeline for vaccine approval. Confirms his position as head of OVG.	✘ No
The Daily Telegraph. 12 September 2020	Major news outlet.	Major news outlet.	No mention of Pollard in excerpt freely visible. Rest of article behind paywall.	? Unknown
GOV.UK commission membership list	Official source.		Confirms his membership on Commission, and his current professional position, but no other detail. Essentially directory information.	✘ No
WHO SAGE membership list	Official source (linked bio, however, probably supplied by Pollard)		Confirms his membership on SAGE, and his current professional position, but no other detail. Essentially directory information.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

For WP:GNG passage, we really need three or more passing sources, we have none so far by my analysis. As for WP:NACADEMIC, none of the 8 criteria are satisfied so far. Number 1 might well be, but we need sources that discuss his academic impact, or show it by academic citations, and none of them so far cited fo so. That is my analysis of the article as it now stands. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Magnovvig the BLPSources tag was based on the analysis above, that there are no currently cited sources with significant coverage. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: thanks for your explanation, which I need to digest. In the meantime, would this Nature list-of-publications page convince you? Why does his membership on two top supervisory boards fail your test, note WP:NACADEMIC #7? Then I note he is not merely a member but a Fellow of four learned organisations (FHEA, FIDSA, FRCPCH, FMedSci). Does that not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC criteria #2 or #3?

His bio page reads: "He has supervised 37 PhD students and his publications includes over 500 manuscripts and books on various topics in paediatrics and infectious diseases. He chairs the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the European Medicines Agency scientific advisory group on vaccines and is a member of WHO’s SAGE. He received the Bill Marshall award of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Disease (ESPID) in 2013, the ESPID Distinguished Award for Education & Communication in 2015 and the Rosén von Rosenstein medal in 2019 awarded by the Swedish Paediatric Society and the Swedish Society of Medicine. He was elected to the Academy of Medical Sciences in 2016 and is an NIHR Senior Investigator." Will something in my quote of his bio page satisfy your reading of the WP:NACADEMIC?

Magnovvig point by point response:

• The list of publications suggests notability, but in my view does not demonstrate it. If it can be shown by an independent source that some of these were highly-cited or otherwise influential, that would do the trick. Many academics publish lots of papers that no one ever takes note of, although I admit, not so often in Nature or its equivalent.
• WP:NACADEMIC point 3 refers to a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor Does this describe any or all of FHEA, FIDSA, FRCPCH, or FMedSci? If it does, and if his Fellow status can be confirmed by an independent source (including a publication or web site of the society concerned), that will establish notability. (Some societies are highly selective in the appointment of Fellows, others use the term as meaning little more than "member".)
• The problem is that His bio page is a self-published source. Nothing on it counts for notability, unless confirmed by an independent source. The awards, if confirmed by an independent source (which should not be hard) may do it, depending on how significant those awards are. I am not familiar with those awards in detail, but they sound significant to me. If they have Wikipedia articles that would do it, but that is not the only way to show that they are highly prestigious academic award[s] or honor[s]. But some source to show this, or perhaps some editor more knowledgeable than I in this field to confirm it, would be needed.
• I had not considered NACADEMIC #7, and that might be satisfied here as you suggest.

In short I think he probably is notable, but more independent sources about him or his work are what I think is needed. Note that all this is merely my opnion, and I am only one editor, with no right of veto. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)