Deletion of Rhonda Patrick

Comment: Even in the absence of WP:NACADEMIC (if that be the case), SusunW's argument for  still stands. I believe Agricola44's referring to the Boston Globe story as a blip (it was a cover story in that issue) is a mischaracterization. Finally, per Megalibrarygirl, web shows often do capture a level of viewership that can be comparable to more traditional mediums like television...and looking only to YouTube count does not actually adequately capture audience reach if the show also happens to be popular on other platforms like iTunes, for example{{cite web |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/doug-elfman/joe-rogan-s-three-hour-podcast-show-tops-11-million-monthly-downloads |title=Joe Rogan’s three-hour podcast show tops 11 million monthly downloads |last=Elfman |first=Doug |publisher
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I did not read the wall above, so maybe some of these arguments have been made already. Basically, Patrick is a junior academic with only a few independent publications that are not (yet) highly cited. (I would not count publications like the 2006 Science paper heavily, since that was several years ''before'' she earned her grad degree, so it's likely her role was very minor.) It seems the vitamin D story was a news blip for a time and almost all of the references are either a cull of the media community for this story or blogs and other web ephemera. This seems to be an obvious case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)