Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rong Xiang Xu


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rong Xiang Xu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. None of the independent sources give in-depth coverage of this person. The last remanent of a walled-garden of articles previously discussed at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_38. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not much impact on scientific literature. Law suit is interesting but WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete as not notable and lacking reliable sources. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough in-depth, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor do they appear to meet WP:PROF. Yobol (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Rong Xiang Xu has been covered in multiple sources in accordance with Wikipedia's Biography Notability criteria. At minimal, there are enough source for the benefit of the doubt that he is "notable" in certain spheres.  There are a number of sources which are in Chinese which should be considered.  Rong Xiang Xu has made contributions to the study of medicine and those should be noted.  His biography may require additional work, but his biography should not be deleted as others have the right to read his biography and make their own conclusions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waverider76 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)  — Waverider76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please look at WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. It is insufficient in an AfD to say there are lots of sources without naming them. As noted above, several editors have searched for reliable sources and couldn't find any. If you have some source that we may have missed then you need to give that source—either here or in the article—so that we can asses the facts. Note that because this article is a biography of living person it is held very strictly to the verifiability test which it currently fails. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The existing references are extremely weak and nowhere near the reliability threshold for a biography of a living person. According to The Scientist (Reference #9) "Xu has not published any of his purported work on stem cells in peer-reviewed journals listed in PubMed", which is an immediate red flag for me. Although the Chinese Medical Doctor Association reference looks good at first glance (a .org website is always a good sign), this is no more than a passing mention of Xu in a long list of around 30 directors. Similarly, the "Meeting Transcript of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors" is undermined by Xu's introduction being followed by one of the participants asking if anyone can find a home for a stray chihuahua(!), which seriously questions the source's credibiilty. I'm not going to go through the other references individually but suffice to say they do nothing to establish notability. Xu's theories appear to be fringe and thereby contrary to Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Philg88 ♦talk 06:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 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.