User talk:EllaGiammai/Mac Guillaume


 * User:NatGertler has raised an important issue and proposed this page for deletion per WP:PROD. I oppose this action.  I am opening this discussion to see if a consensus emerges.

Applying the notability requirement WP:PEOPLE to senior industry executives is not as simple as one might like. Often they have made contributions that are surely "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (WP:ANYBIO criterion 2), but the record of those contributions names only the company and not the individual.

In this case, I have been told that the subject, Dr. Guillaume, was pivotal in the development by Merck of Indinavir (Crixivan); that he was a key figure in pre-clinical and clinical activities to test the efficacy of indinavir in combination with Zidovudine (AZT) and Lamivudine (this link); and that he positive results from this trials and others helped to popularize the combination therapy strategy (HAART) that quickly became the standard of care for HIV-positive patients.

There are some non-web accessible histories of these "golden years" of Merck, that I believe can document Guillaume's contributions. I will search for these and invite other editors to look also, or to comment.

I think that a prudent course of action is to allow time for these better references to surface. It they cannot be found within the scope of WP:RS then I agree with NatGertler that the page should eventually be deleted.

By the way, I have never met Dr. Guillaume, nor am I associated with any organization that he is associated with. EllaGiammai (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If the record of those contributions is with the company, then the notability flows with the company, not with him. That he worked on notable projects does not, in Wikipedia terms, make him notable, as notability is not WP:INHERITED. If he was a key part of Merck at a notable time, the appropriate thing to do may be to cover him in a small section of the Merck article, much as musicians only known for their involvement in a particular band get covered within that band's article rather than having their own article. However, the claim in the article is that he is best known for Dekephate, which doesn't even have their own article. If they are deserving of an article, then perhaps energy is better put there; if they are not deserving of an article, one wonders if someone who is best known for his work with them really meets any notability.
 * The only reference currently in the article is to a government filing, which conveys no notability at all.
 * Realize that if the article is deleted, that does not prevent someone from recreating it, should better reference be found. If it has to go through the WP:AFD process to get deleted, it is apt be looked at with a bit more scrutiny when it does reappear, due to its deletion history, but even then if the references are solid. What I would recommend, assuming you intend to do further research, is that we put this page through WP:Userification, which would leave it in your personal editing space for some time so that you can work on it to the point where it's appropriate for inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, that is a reasonable path forward. I will userify the page and do more research. EllaGiammai (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)