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. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William X. Wang[edit]

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

Pure vanity bio - if the guy is notable, this needs to be blown up and started again. ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There may be a rationale for notability, but this began as an unsourced vanity autobiography in 2010, and has accreted resume-cruft substantially since then. There has never been a good version. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is sad that this glorified CV has remained undetected for 5+ years, there does not appear to be anything in this person's history to suggest he meets WP:N. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkwood829 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)I have read over several messages from your talk. I get several issues would like to discuss with you. As Mr.Wang’s very close and long-time friend, only me who has opportunities of follow his experience in both US and China for decades, and also only me who is able to understand the languages that introduced him in both English and Chinese, this is the reason, I has initialized the article and been kept it updated. I think it would be more beneficial to keep the article alive and to continue improve it for better. I feel there has a few reasons: At first, Wang’s story have been continually appeared in a number of TV program, book, magazine; journal; records in Chinese since 1980s of last century. Those information presented in the article all can be verified from public resources. Secondly, because his unique life story from a country boy to be a scholar is considered as a miniature and epitome of a Chinese history period that communist has ruled for more than last 60 years. Thirdly, Wang’s experience from a bio-scientist to bio-related entrepreneur, is the products of the times, that reflects and somehow represents the trend of the times and the tendency of 21st century’s industry development; thirdly Wang spent a half time of his life in china and another half in America, he is a kind of symbolic figure for millions of American Chinese who contributed to both country and he is a good example of the United States as a national,culture and idea melting pot for people who coming from all over the world. Fourthly, since the article lunched in 2010, it has been 6 years,and during this period, I can see from the view history where has more 20 editors whom you might be included, had appreciable time to correct it, improve it and make it better and better. A deletion is a simple and quick action, but it would waste all those valuable efforts and precious time. At last, I found that your last modification has removed the most controversial paragraphs which I had added a few days ago, and so the article already returned to the before that the version has existed 6 years. In future, if I intend to add more details, I should very carefully to follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia and write it neutrally and professionally. Sincerely, Kirkwood829.Kirkwood829 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Befuddled This fellow may or may not be notable. But the article is so horribly badly written that it's impossible to make an informed evaluation. The suggestion to blow the article up and start all over again is spot on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete whether he is notable or not is impossible to tell from such a wall of text. Without proper sourcing it’s impossible to fix, best to start over from sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the information of this BLP does not meet WP:V. The citation needed tags I added a few days ago to the article were replaced mainly by articles that failed to source most of the information in the paragraphs. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wow. Simply wow, that's all I can say. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 18 August 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.