Talk:Deniz Kent

Promotional language and notability

This page reads more like a Forbes article than a Wikipedia article. I don't see how Kent's aspiration to revolutionize an industry is notable enough to be mentioned. The lead section should talk about what he has done, not what he intends to do. The use of the word "pioneering" is questionable and backed up by pretty obscure sources.

I also question the notability of this guy, but I don't know enough about the subject or sources to comment on it. Pastaman1a (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great feedback, let me incubate and rectify. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made look quite good. Props to you for taking feedback so well. Pastaman1a (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy editing! 24eeWikiUser (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language "Kent’s work revolutionizes biomanufacturing processes, particularly in the production of cultured meat and biologics." is obviously promotional and it is sourced to (1) the venture capital firm that is literally invested in the success of Kent's business and (2) Kent himself. There are many similar claims throughout the article that are sourced only to Kent or interviews of him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

Let me check and see if I can make improvements by tomorrow. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other page reviewers, sourcing and copyvio problems on this page are discussed on the creator's talk page; see here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.aiche.org/community/bio/deniz-kent-phd. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of problematic sourcing

The page creator archived a lengthy discussion on sourcing for this article so reposting a portion of it here for reference by future reviewers:

You're correct that you did remove the specific challenged claim about him "revolutionizing" a process, but you still have information that is not adequately verified. For example:

Kent co-discovered a new human liver stem cell population and conducted the world’s first high-throughput small molecule screen using induced pluripotent stem cell-derived hepatocytes. This is sourced to an article that he coauthored, so not an independent source, and what's more, the article does not make this claim about his findings. What does make this claim is his official bio, and it makes it in an almost verbatim statement that you copied: he co-discovered a new human liver stem cell population and conducted the world’s first high throughput small molecule screen using IPS-derived hepatocytes. That will need to be revdel'd as a copyright violation.
His contributions were recognized with an award for outstanding research has no citation, but the nearest citation is to the subject talking about himself on a podcast, so a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Kent co-founded Prolific Machines, with the mission to revolutionize cellular agriculture through proprietary biotechnologies that enable cost-effective cultivated meat production. This is sourced to the blog of a venture capital firm that invested in his company, so again not independent.

In the past I've encouraged you to ask about sources at the WP:TEAHOUSE as you are writing articles. You're a prolific contributor and you do a good job of formatting articles and expanding coverage of business leaders, particularly in Africa. However, I think you need to improve understanding of notability, reliable/independent sourcing and copyright -- all of which new page reviewers are supposed to find -- and interacting at the TEAHOUSE can help. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed feedback—I truly appreciate your insights. I recognize the need to improve my approach to evaluating sources and copyright, and I’ll make a concerted effort to do so.

Could you clarify something for me? Based on your assessment, it seems that press releases, interviews, primary sources, and trivial mentions are generally not accepted for verifying information. Am I understanding this correctly? I want to ensure I align with Wikipedia’s guidelines, but I’m not certain if this is explicitly stated in the policies. Your guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources can count toward notability:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs are not secondary.
Press releases are not WP:INDEPENDENT, see WP:PRSOURCE.
And WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs are not WP:SIGCOV.

To count toward WP:GNG, a source needs to be all three of these (plus WP:RELIABLE).

However, you can use primary sources, press releases, etc. in a limited way to meet the requirement of verifiability. The links I share above explain more, but a primary source should be used with care and only to verify uncontested facts (say, did someone graduate from a certain university, or what date did a company form). They cannot be used to contested claims or provide a basis for the page creator's synthesis. For example, an article I'm building right now in my sandbox relies on secondary sources for almost all of the text, except for a list of personnel who served the institution and dates they served; that information is not contested and it's a matter of basic facts, so I'm using a primary source there.

So when a new page reviewer comments on the use of primary sources, we're not saying you need to remove them -- we're saying that you can't base a whole page on them, or base contested/opinionated claims on them, or that they can't be used to validate notability. Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]