Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Wong (immunologist)


 * 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. However, per request I will copy this to the draft space for User:MaynardClark to have a look at. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Grace Wong (immunologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Does not appear to pass WP:GNG only source actually discussing subject is her own companies website Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. The article discusses the issues that she has worked on in several companies which she did not control - companies which each have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. Then, the articles references the AREAS of her research work done AFTER she founded and led a company which recruited top scientists from those other companies.  Further, the article is much better developed now, and her research colleagues, most of whom have their own Wikipedia articles because of their notoriety, are listed in a distinct section. MaynardClark (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The clueless writer of this BLP does not say under which name she publishes, so I can't comment. Default Delete . Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. Would the creator of this BLP like to say if he has a WP:COI or edits it for reward? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
 * I began this article. I have no fCOI here.  I'm not involved with any of these pharmaceutical companies.  I do not receive pay for this or from any other article writing or editing or work on the Wikipedia project(s).  I'm only interested in the promise of this kind of research (drug repurposing, which is not all that Grace Wong's operation does).  I'm a research administrator at Harvard School of Public Health. However, I see no reason why a COI would make any difference in the integrity of the article.  It's what it is - factual, useful, interesting, and more worthwhile than some of the articles about US celebrities. The research is very promising; 'deletionists' should study the references to see what radiosensitization, radiodesensitization, chemosensitization and chemodesensitization are, what drug repurposing is. MaynardClark (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With all the baubles you display on your user page I am surprised that you do not know what a WP:BLP is. It appears that under you should have declared that you edit for reward. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC).

The only reward is the satisfaction of an article on the person, who is a colorful character, a very resourceful scientist, and a good organizer of scientists and students of science, many of whom have bettered their careers because of her mentoring. MaynardClark (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever your views, you are required to follow Wikipedia policy. If you don't you can be banned from editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC).
 * This is the policy that I am following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Where is there any infraction? MaynardClark (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * the drug/scientific concepts are important and very notable. That is not the same thing as a particular person working in the field being notable (yet). If she makes some great breakthroughs that would certainly change - What is needed are independent reliable sources discussing her, or if one is attempting to go the academic route, papers she has written that are heavily cited (relative to the citing standards of the particular field). As it currently is, the article serves as a WP:COATRACK for the scientific concepts - if those topics need an article, write that article. How many of thse sources in the article actually discuss Dr Wong? The policies in question would be WP:GNG WP:ACADEMIC WP:BIO. I do not see any WP:BLP issues in the current article (except perhaps WP:PSEUDO) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ I think mentioning sanctions is uncalled for at this juncture. He created an article. It may or may not survive AFD. But we do not ban people for creating articles that are ultimately deleted, unless it is done to excess and disruption. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a questioning of the recently endorsed WP:Paid editing policy which editors may not be yet up to date with. Better to warn sooner than later. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment - I fixed the formatting and removed some trivia about another scientist, per WP:MOS and WP:NOTINHERITED. The major remaining problem with the article seems to be the dearth of significant coverage in secondary sources about the subject herself. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear whether or not any 'vote' is occurring. Clarification, please? MaynardClark (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTVOTE, per WP:DISCUSSAFD, it is a discussion trying to build a WP:CONSENSUS on if the article should be deleted or not. Its not a vote in that nobody is going to be just counting the votes in the end and the majority wins. That said, the count is not ignored all together, it is just that the weight of the arguments presented by those individuals is more important. That weight is largely determined by adherence to various wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of which have been pointed out above. The most important one in this case is WP:N. It may seem like a vote tho, and certainly the outcome of this discussion will determine the future (or lack thereof for now) of the Grace Wong article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. There may be a need to develop more of the reasons for notability, so what if we don't have everything in place at this time. The people in the company aren't really driving this; I had thought that Dr. Grace Wong is a colorful character whom we often see in Harvard's Longwood Medical Area; we know of her work with memorializing Linus Pauling, she mentors a great many science students, and her array of work INCLUDES (but is not limited to) (what I consider to be) some very promising research directions in pharmaceutical development. MaynardClark (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Undecided. There is a brief bio here, another bio here. A problem for searchers: the name Grace Wong is common; while searching, I found a valedictorian, a marine biologist, a reporter, many other Grace Wongs, so I tried to limit the search string using pulls (such as immunolog? OR actokine OR therapeut? OR etc) but still searching was difficult, and I did not want to get the wong Wong (sorry). She is clearly a highly active, well-respected medical researcher, who publishes frequently; for example, her article tumor necrosis factor was cited by 101 other researchers. So she might meet the professor test in terms of publishing impact. But right now I don't see much in terms of nontrivial in-depth coverage, but clearly she is one of those people who discover new things, and is having a big impact on improving the lives of all humans. She appears to be a major force in her industry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that being 'a major force in [one's] industry' is in itself reason to take a person's bio seriously. Some contributors in the sciences don't seek visibility outside the 'media of the profession' (conferences, meetings, workshops, posterings, announcements, etc.). MaynardClark (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ACADEMIC explicitly allows for that type of argument in criteria #1, but that status must itself be reflected in independent reliable sources. This leads right into the second problem, of which even if we could hand-wave away the notability requirement, everything, especially on a WP:BLP, must be WP:Verifiable. If there are not sources talking about Wong, then that means everything in the article is either unsourced, or not actually about her (IE, WP:COATRACK) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

snips from WP:ACADEMIC Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
 * "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details."

Dr. Grace Wong herself would like the article to be removed. I vote for speedy deletion! How quickly could this be done wtihout jeopardizing the prospect of such an article's being developed in the future? MaynardClark (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The page may still qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G7 as nobody else has made any major edits. ( do you object? you seem to be the only other human to make any edits.) but as this discussion is now ripe for closing, that may be interpreted as WP:GAMEing the system to avoid the deletion decision. In either case, if the article is recreated in the future with better sources (such that it does not qualify for WP:G4) there would be no issue, but the sources must be significantly stronger the second time around to avoid the g4 usually. You could add the speedy g7 template to the page and see what happens.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever this groups decides. Deletion, mothballing (is there such a thing, perhaps return to a 'userspace'), or something else.

I don't know where there are any inaccuracies or liabilities, since everything there is directly from published, online materials that are already public. MaynardClark (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How does MaynardClark know that the subject requests deletion? Is he in contact with her? If so he should have declared COI. The creator has been not been fully unambiguous about the question of editing for reward. I find his behavior in this AfD to have been less than satisfactory. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
 * If it is deleted, you may ask the deleting administrator to userfy or copy to WP:AFC for you, both places where you may improve on the article in the background. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - without more information, I reserve my right not to !vote. I do not object to this BLP's deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete on basis of questions about the BLP's provenance. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete because the interests of the project and of the article's subject are to delete the article, as it currently stands. I would like to see it copied to WP:AFC. MaynardClark (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (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.