Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qing Wang (scientist and biotech entrepreneur): Difference between revisions

Qing Wang (scientist and biotech entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article was created by a WP:COI editor. The whole article is WP:NPOV. Beyond self published sources, I also could not find much information proving that this article passes WP:GNG. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LuniZunie, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I am one of the editors who contributed to the page on Dr. Qing Wang. Dr. Wang has been a long-standing collaborator of us in cancer genomics and clinical proteomics research, and his work has been covered by a number of independent, reliable sources, including reports from Johns Hopkins Medicine, Wharton/University of Pennsylvania, GenomeWeb, and major venture capital news outlets. These references were included specifically to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliable-source standards.

If there are specific concerns regarding the current sourcing, tone, or notability criteria that you believe are not met, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss and improve the article accordingly. My goal is to ensure the page meets Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and biographical notability.

Thank you again for your review, and I welcome any guidance on how the article can be strengthened to address your concerns. Ryanvwang (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the greasiest cases of WP:PROMO I have ever seen. I instinctively kept clutching my wallet through the whole article. Every source is either a paper by the (admittedly accomplished) subject, or from one of the universities he’s been associated with (not independent), or a WP:ROUTINE announcement. If the last user believes there are “major venture capital news outlets” with significant coverage (Crunchbase is no such thing), then present them and we can reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No pass of WP:PROF (unremarkable citation profile, even before considering how many coauthors were involved); the “media coverage” is a drumbeat of press releases. Blatant promotionalism through and through. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]