This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Andrew Pollard (immunologist) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
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.
~ 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 Contribs02:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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?
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 Contribs17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]