Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwenaëlle Thomas


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  23:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Gwenaëlle Thomas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Because I'm a glutton for punishment, here's another proposition to delete a well-meaning, well-researched, well-referenced article on a young scientist who just does not meet our notability requirements. Thomas is as yet merely a PhD candidate, which already pretty much precludes applicability of WP:NPROF. As to GNG, she started a YouTube channel that is sparsely patronized, and appears to be involved with Black In Neuro (which is inconveniently down at the moment). Neither of these seem to have attracted the kind of coverage we would expect to justify an article - basically it's all in-house. So unless there is undiscovered material hiding somewhere that could shore up 3rd party coverage, this would seem to be another WP:TOOSOON case. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * comment we should probably contact the organizers of this course since this seems like a bad idea from the course organizers. While well meaning, writing articles about non notable people is not the way to go here. --hroest 01:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I wrote an email to Ian and hope to ping them here and . --hroest 01:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete sadly as much too soon while sobbing at the waste of student effort. I will note that the students did the training exercise that includes finding a notable topic. (The same page is also in the teacher training materials). In addition the biographies guide listed on the course Timeline says Notability means the subject has received significant coverage, over a period of time, in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It also provides links to WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMICS. I don't know what else WikiEd can do, except put together a list of pitfalls that instructors should avoid. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article makes zero claims to notability. Honestly I don't think WikiEd courses should even be writing NPROF bios, much less BLPs. They seem especially prone to not only pushing non-notable subjects into mainspace, but also introducing false information (not necessarily in this case) and a healthy degree of COI (it seems very likely the author knows the subject, otherwise why and how would they choose her to write about??). Not to mention the potential embarrassment of the subject from having a wildly premature profile on WP followed by a public deletion discussion. Either the student or instructor (or both) seriously messed up here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Independent and reliable sources suggest there is a developing basis for WP:BASIC notability: The odds are stacked against black, Latino students going to grad school. Here are some solutions (PBS NewsHour, 2019, quotes with context and educational background), Black in Neuro Week puts spotlight on Black scientists studying the brain (The News&Observer, 2020, context, several quotes, career and some biographical information), but that is all I have been able to find at this point. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I also found the same sourcing as Beccaynr, but, I think it's WP:TOOSOON and not enough to convince me of WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree it is WP:TOOSOON and there is not enough for WP:BASIC based on the sources we have found. Beccaynr (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment just want to convey that it is a well written article. A good amount of research and writing skills developed definitely won't go in vain in the long term. Best! VV 11:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with WP:TOOSOON, right now the article does not support WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much, much TOOSOON. While I applaud the effort, I echo JoelleJay's thoughts about WikiEd courses creating BLPs. --Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.