Jennifer Rubin (policy analyst): Google search pulls up the numerous opinion pieces written by the subject, but no independent/secondary source talking about her.  Sabih omar 20:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians ,  and United Kingdom .  — Karnataka talk 20:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Unable to find any RS anywhere User:Let'srun 21:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding that I understand there are multiple people with the same name that have wikipedia articles.  Let'srun ( talk ) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete: No only agree with what nom wrote but created by sock puppet.  Delete!  Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 10:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Executive chair of the Economic and Social Research Council, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office and Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London .  Very clearly notable.  Are people possibly getting her confused with Jennifer Rubin (columnist) , who is a political commentator?  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are right!  Even Jennifer Rubin (Columnist) does not seem un-notable judging by the well-written article on that subject.  Sabih omar 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  Meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5 & #6.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp for government offices held.  Sources would help.  Edison ( talk ) 03:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The delete proponents clearly did not check her out.  She is not a "political commentator", but a high-ranked government official and academic.  Chhandama ( talk ) 07:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG - I don't see any secondary coverage of her.  Keep ! votes are appealing to status, not sources.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.ukri.org/news/esrc-executive-chair-professor-rubin-to-take-up-new-home-office-role/ is pretty good in my opinion, and there might be more out there.  No strong opinions either way.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't appear secondary to me.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also want to confirm my source search was for the policy analyst, not the commentator.  There are also no WP:GNG passing sources currently in the article either - all press release type fodder.  This is a basically a CV bio.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there are strong views on both sides.  I am concerned and agree with User:Necrothesp 's comment that early participants and maybe even the nominator might be confusing this article subject with a different Jennifer Rubin.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Sal2100,  the "status" of executive chair of the Economic and Social Research Council probably meets the requirement, among other positions.  As for verification, the UKRI ref and others support that.  Delete votes which misidentified should be discounted, otherwise perhaps close as no consensus and try again, but in my opinion we should probably just keep as meeting on notability and verifiability.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User:SportingFlyer , your concern is now about verifiability rather than notability (which the subject appears to meet), correct?  Primary sources can also be used in some cases, the UKRI ref comes from a British government website and can probably be used to at least verify her status.  However there are other traces online which can be used to corroborate the UKRI, for example https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/esrc-chief-executive-and-ukri-innovation-champion-named , https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/19-09-18-2m_funding_award_recognises_the_centre_for_competitive_advantage_in_the_global_economy_as_a_uk_centre_of_research_excellence/ , https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/jan/dementia-projects-improve-peer-support-prevention-and-end-life-care .  I think we can safely conclude her position is verified.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, my main concern is notability.  She is clearly not notable per WP:GNG .  No secondary sources have covered her in any sort of detail, and the sources you've just posited are not secondary, and she does not have any assumed notability.  If there are sources that aren't generated by her organisations or collaborators I haven't found, please let me know.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, very well.  I think she meets on notability per Sal2100 as noted above.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough.  I'm not seeing it, but WP:ACADEMIC is really difficult to apply outside the walled garden.  Easiest to just look at GNG.  SportingFlyer T · C 18:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her position doesn't confer to being notable on its own.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the notability aspect is met per Indefensible, and the verifiability aspect is met by reliable sourcing from the UK govt.  IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 17:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I was considering Necrothesp's cite of this , but then considered this as possibly WP:ROUTINE , but after Beccaynr's exploration of wp:NACADEMIC I'm now in favour of keeping.   (I changed my mind twice here)  Chumpih t 19:29 and 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) , 16:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:NPROF #3, she is an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences [1] , and per WP:NPROF #7, she appears to have a substantial impact outside academia in her academic capacity, e.g. Professor Jennifer Rubin, Executive Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Professor of Public Policy at King’s College London, has been appointed Chief Scientific Adviser and Director General Science, Technology, Analysis, Research and Strategy for the Home Office (UKRI, 2020).  Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is that an independent source?  Chumpih t 06:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NACADEMIC , The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable .  For documenting election for NPROF#3 , publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source ; the source I cited above includes a quote from the president of the electing institution and a link to a pdf listing new fellows (that is not working nor available at the Internet Archive).  The NPROF#7 guideline offers examples of how to demonstrate substantial impact, and this discussion seems to help show some of the challenges with one of the typical methods ("frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area") because searches are complicated by Jennifer Rubin the columnist/commentator, and on JSTOR, Jennifer Rubin Grandis.  So I suggest her verifiable career outside of academia in her academic capacity seems to help support notability, in addition to the NPROF#3 recognition.  However, there is also apparent coverage in Times Higher Education : ESRC chief executive and UKRI ‘innovation champion’ named (2017), but I cannot access this; and with an assist from ProQuest, I also found this Jennifer Rubin quoted in mainstream press: Guardian , 2020.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood.   Thanks very much for this explanation and additional research.   I change my stance.  (again)  Chumpih t 16:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This sort of explanation is exactly why NACADEMIC should be deprecated and replaced with GNG.  We wouldn't push together bits and pieces like this for anyone in any other profession.  I don't think that will happen any time soon, though.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my view, the recognition from her peers through the election as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is similar to other SNGs, such as a "significant award or honor" ( WP:ANYBIO ) or "The person is regarded as an important figure [...] by peers" ( WP:AUTHOR ), and overall, this recognition seems to help show, as noted in the academics section in WP:BIO , how "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."  Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But that would imply every fellow is notable, and that's clearly not the case from clicking the wikilink...  I disagree with the premise of the academics section, but that's policy.  NACADEMIC is just incredibly difficult to apply for someone outside the walled garden...  SportingFlyer T · C 21:49, 20 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep