Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxime Masson (medical student)

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. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Masson (medical student)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A vanity bio of a medical student, with no independent references. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What is most appalling in this act of unsatiable vanity is this edit, which moved an existing article about a notable priest to make space for their own (or their boyfriend, whatever) glory. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion rationale is without merit and violates WP:AGF as well. The subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG. We don't automatically delete articles on notable subjects because we suspect a COI. If the article contains promotional language then it should be cleaned up. AfD is not cleanup. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please explain how did you figure out it satisfies WP:GNG. Namely, which rules of it are satisfied. How is that nomination for deletion of a vanity page violates WP:AGF? How much GF you A if I move the page Stanislaw Lem to Stanislaw Lem (writer) and put my bio in the place? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm also quite concerned that the person who submitted this is also deleting referenced material from the article in question with misleading edit summaries [1]. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So not notable, I'm surprised someone didn't CSD it. Risker (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to the correct title, which is Maxime Masson (medical student). I'll get around to the disambiguation page shortly. Risker (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to respect WP's notability guidelines, although more secondary sources would be welcome... I guess those will come eventually. For the moment, article satisfies WP:ALIVE as per WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR. Initial authors were in accordance with WP:BOLD and WP:RELY; on my part as per WP:IPHUMAN. Perhaps WP:COI with initial author User:BScMScMD, yet further investigation required. --74.58.19.13 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — 74.58.19.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How does this article meet WP:GNG? The overwhelming number of references are to the article subject's own work. Getting a letter published in a journal isn't notable. Certainly getting published in a school paper isn't notable. There's nothing about him that differentiates him from hundreds of thousands of medical school students around the world. Risker (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far it has been shown that the subject of this article has written letters that have been published in a few places, including a couple in a newspaper and a handful in medical journals. As well as these comment and opinion pieces, the subject of this article has also written some essays that were accepted by online magazines articles that specifically invite contributions from students. For a healthcare professional this pattern of correspondence and creative output is not currently enough to meet WP:GNG in my estimation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drchriswilliams. I can't locate any independent, significant coverage of this subject. The subject's own writing doesn't come close to meeting even the relatively easy standard of WP:AUTHOR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main claim of importance is rather dubious IMHO: "writing to (notable?) journals and got posted" seems rather unremarkable, like a slight step-up to letters to newspapers. WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR ask for the subject's work to receive critical attention, like being highly cited or received thorough peer review in the field. There is none provided in the article or here in AfD so far. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a vanity bio, or autobio, without any significant references other than those created by the subject of the article. Getting letters published, even in very respectable journals, does not generate notability. No obvious difference here from many other medical students worldwide. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear vanity article of a non-notable medical student. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline speedyable; how does writing a letter make one notable? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is being a medical student, who got published for english writing in the college blog with less than 100 hits per month notable? We're going to be really busy with every english student in the country being added to the wiki! Also, first 3 links belong on the French version...if this isn't deleted - we're going to have to remove them. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wp:prof for academics in the medical field. The subject is a far cry from an expert in the field, and even further from being a full professor. BakerStMD 00:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the place for a tirade about priests of the same name being notable, but THIS is not notable per criteria. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2015 (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.