Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Denham


 * 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. The primary arguments are that most reliable secondary sources for demonstrating notability of the subject arise from an event, not the person, and that the person is otherwise a low-profile individual. Furthermore, it appears that the subject is explicitly requesting deletion of the page, with more support than opposition to doing so being provided in response. Thus, defaulting to delete. slakr \ talk / 03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles Denham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As discussed on Talk, Denham does not appear to be the subject of multiple, in-depth, reliable sources, or at least there are none that I have been able to find. Citations 1-11 are all primary sources, self-published sources, or others (the WSJ link appears to be a forum of some kind). The only reliably-sourced content is about a controversy at CareFusion where he was one of the involved parties as the company's CEO, however he was not the subject of those articles, but is only mentioned in a couple sentences. The controversy is better-covered on the company page. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that this article should be deleted, but instead should be fully cited and restored to a version consistent with others BLPs on Wikipedia. On May 20, 2014, a great deal of relevant and factual information was removed. Much of it was cited. Some of it could be better cited, and I would like to provide those sources, both primary and secondary. Charles Denham is an important public figure with over 30 years of documented work in healthcare and innovation, and he deserves to have an accurate Wikipedia page that reflects this. Removal of awards and honors while highlighting a controversy is unbalanced, and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia being an encyclopedic source. I think we can come to an agreement about the best way to portray his many accomplishments with cited material.
 * I propose that we consider a fully referenced, balanced WP:BLP consistent with other BLPs of people of similar prominence in public and on Wikipedia. I would like to create a fully cited version of a proposed biography and post it in this talk page for discussion - or should that proposed version go on the Charels Denham talk page page - getting consensus before it is posted. I think this is a more reasonable approach than continuing to edit the Wikipedia page, going back and forth, leading to a disjointed page with errors and non sequiturs.
 * Dr. Denham has been unable to respond to some of the recent changes to his page since he was blocked from the page because his name was the same as the article, and he had to go through the process of verifying his identity, and he was out of the country for a period of time. Now that he is verified, he would like to come to consensus on the issue. Let me know if this is the appropriate venue for the discussion. TMIT Curator (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)TMIT Curator


 * This is the appropriate place to make such arguments, though you should disclose your COI here in the discussion string, rather than just on your userpage, to make sure the person closing the discussion is aware. Primary sources are allowed in certain circumstances, but not for awards, nor to validate that he meets the requirements for an article. If you would like to see the article kept, the best way to make your argument is to provide credible, independent sources like journals, the press, etc. that offer some depth of information about his background and are not written by him. Though you would like to see consensus result in keeping the article, you should keep in mind it may not necessarily go that way if no secondary sources are found.  CorporateM (Talk) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting, . If Wikipedia guidelines seem confusing to you then ask here, or if you want other opinions, anyone at WP:TEAHOUSE can direct you to as much assistance as you would like and of any sort you like. Should TMIT ever take interest in improving general articles on health on Wikipedia then please visit WikiProject Medicine for support and guidance.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The following sources establish that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I disagree with CorporateM's assessment that Denham was not the subject of the Department of Justice-related articles and that he features only in a few sentences in them. Under WP:ACADEMIC this person meets criteria 7 ("one of the country’s most visible advocates for patient safety" - ProPublica) and 8 ("Dr. Charles Denham Named Editor of Journal of Patient Safety").
 * Sources about that Department of Justice issue -
 * Other sources which generally establish WP:GNG just by reporting various actions by being about the subject of this article but only reporting minor events are as follows:
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Other sources which generally establish WP:GNG just by reporting various actions by being about the subject of this article but only reporting minor events are as follows:
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Other sources which generally establish WP:GNG just by reporting various actions by being about the subject of this article but only reporting minor events are as follows:
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Other sources which generally establish WP:GNG just by reporting various actions by being about the subject of this article but only reporting minor events are as follows:
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.
 * Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.


 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  00:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Many of these sources are primary sources, blogs, brief mentions or areas where Denham is merely quoted as a spokesperson, but this looks like a proper source and says he is "one of the country’s most visible advocates for patient safety." We still don't have enough strong sources to make a proper and robust article, but since his notability is confirmed a 2-3 paragraph stub may be appropriate.CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I thoughtfully selected all of these sources and excluded others that I did not like. I would ask that anyone who questions any of them speak up. The blogs here conform to WP:SPS, there are no primary sources (other than his being named as a journal editor, which is elsewhere reported by third-party sources), and all of these feature Denham beyond mentions or being a spokesperson. The force of Denham's personal character or work is the subject of all of these works.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  02:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind - a WSJ and Reuters articles are only mentions. I struck them out.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While you go to mention it conforms to wp:sps, I feel the need to mention that wp:BLPSPS would also be at play in this situation.I'd also mention that there seems to be a question of notability above. I don't feel that you can make a case of notability with SPS.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had not considered or even known about BLPSPS. Thanks for sharing. I crossed out the blogs which do not comply with WP:BLPSPS. Please let me know if I missed any, or if you think other sources should be removed from consideration.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't remove the question of notability. I really haven't looked indepth here but the majority of what I'm seeing is ties to that carefusion scandal. I don't know if scandal is right word because they DOJ took a settlement. Carefusion may or may have have whatever. I think it could be argued that which is being claimed for the sake of notability really only amounts to a matter of short term interest. I'm not going to go through each source but above, SGGH, is saying that little to no secondary sources are used in the article. Secondary sources really make the case for notability. Their absence in the article wouldn't be a cause for deletion, that's if they do exist. With the evidence as stands now I kind of feel that I would have no choice but to vote for deletion but I'll withhold my vote for the time being.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete (changing to Delete, see below) The only significant coverage he has gotten from independent sources is about a medical kickback case, in which he was only peripherally named and nothing against him was ever formally alleged or charged. Partly for BLP reasons I don't feel this shaky coverage is enough to establish a notability claim. But he does not seem to have gotten coverage for his other activities, and IMO he fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. That leaves WP:ACADEMIC, where he might have a weak case for notability. He has published numerous articles, and their citation rates are respectable but probably not enough to meet the ACADEMIC criterion. He also served as editor of the Journal of Patient Safety but that probably doesn't qualify as a "major" journal. BTW since User:TMIT Curator (to whom I am going to suggest a change in username) has expressed an interest in improving the article, it could be userfied to them if deleted. (Oops, too late - they have been blocked for username reasons.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An enormous amount of energy and time has been put into highlighting the Controversy content while at the same time diminishing the value of Dr. Denham’s 30 years of accomplishments. The process was set off by an undeclared and conflicted competitor. The current formulation of the page does not deliver the encyclopedic value to Wikipedia and magnifies negative content of citations riddled with errors. Therefore, I believe it may serve Wikipedia and Dr. Denham to delete the page all together. Patientadvocate3000 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As the subject of the page in question, I would like to respectfully submit my request that the page be deleted. WP:BIODEL states "Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy." Charles Denham (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If this person meets WP:GNG then I would not want the page deleted only for WP:BIODEL. The subject of this article was a leading player in his field, ("one of the country’s most visible advocates for patient safety" - ProPublica, and just days ago in this deletion discussion, the staffperson at his organization wrote "Charles Denham is an important public figure with over 30 years of documented work". I think that BIODEL should be a separate discussion from AfD. First the subject of this article should be judged as meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or not, then if AfD keeps the article, there can be a second evaluation about how notable this person is. There are some sources which say that the subject of the article is known, public, and visible, which I feel counter the BIODEL criteria that subjects be "unknown, non-public figures".  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * COI accounts will basically vote in whatever way they feel is strategic to them at-the-time. However I disagree that we need more bureaucracy by creating separate discussions. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE specifically says that a request for deletion by the BLP effects how an AfD should be closed and therefore this is the proper place for them to register a request. However, if the article is kept, I think just a stub of 1-2 paragraphs would do with the bulk of the controversy content on the company page. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct and I am incorrect about the usual procedure for following BIODEL. Both discussions can happen here as requested.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been deeply troubled and until today, very confused by the intense and relentless actions that Blue Rasberry has taken to edit my bio page in his is role as a Wikipedian. Now I understand it. This pattern of behavior started in January when he began making dramatic edits to my bio page with  Richard I. Cook. MD, who also had a significant and undeclared  COI until it was exposed  on my article talk page. Again, I request that my bio page be taken down or else it will continue to be used to damage me by those who have a clear COI.  Blue Rasberry has made 14 significant edits, submitted commentary of more than 3,700 words, and has persistently deleted positive facts in my bio. This included making negative content an entire category called CONTROVERSY while deleting positive accomplishments. The citations he uses to discredit me are blogs that are riddled with errors and have clear contradictions, even from the sources they cite (which have been clarified on the  on my article talk page.)  Today, I found on  Blue Raspberry’s User Page that he is a paid contractor for Consumer Reports which generates and sells consumer access to a hospital scorecard that directly competes with ones I have helped support through my philanthropy and expertise. Further, according to his user page,  Blue Rasberry has worked on projects with business partners with whom we have had a business relationships, such as Choosing Wisely. This behavior is in clear violation of WP:COI. When I looked on the CareFusion company page today, I found  Blue Rasberry has added the same issue multiple times, put it in the lede, and created a new section header making it unduly prominent, just as he did on my page. The information is inaccurate, redundant, and again defamatory to me mentioning my name twice. I respectfully submit that my page be removed from Wikipedia. The behaviors played out  on my article talk page and the numerous edits to my page are not in the spirit of the wonderful principles upon which Wikipedia is founded and seeks to embody. WP:BLP are not intended to be used for journalistic debates or to discredit people who cannot defend themselves because they can’t edit their own pages and cannot get the truth out in secondary sources. Nor, as I understand it, is Wikipedia to be used for competitive business advantage by those with undeclared conflicts of interest. It appears from the dialog that the only person who wants to preserve the page has a conflict of interest. Please delete my page and honor the principles of Wikipedia. Charles Denham (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello! I made a post at the conflict of interest noticeboard that you made a COI claim against me. I am leaving this discussion now and will not edit anything related to the subject of this article or any news related to Denham again anywhere on Wikipedia, but am available elsewhere to talk about any conduct issues including COI that anyone wishes to address. I deny having any reason to believe that I could receive favor from my employer for editing this article, except that in general my employer hired me because I am a Wikipedian with my own opinions independent of them and can speak and act according to my own interests. I also deny doing defamatory editing, but COI is a tricky concept and no one can see how it manifests from one's own self so it might be true.
 * I have no knowledge of any competing products or direct relationship between my employment and this issue. I have personal and professional interest in the health advocacy sector, which is why I care about news in this field and why I have a history of editing in this space. Nothing good can come of my staying here and I trust the Wikipedia community to follow process from here out, and that everyone knows where to find me. Please leave me out of this case, but please also do not neglect to contact me if I can resolve any concerns in another way.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am the one that copy/pasted the material to the company page, which is the right place for it. However, I just used "the CEO" which is how we normally handle these issues where it is not of value to the reader to name the person (this format is debateable here). However, I see now a very UNDUE emphasis on it in the Lead. I will fix it now. Regarding the COI accusations, that is a lot of dots to connect, but it does seem Blue has a strong opinion, which may be effected by his background and affiliations, but I doubt his motives are corrupted per se. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Above I !voted "weak delete" on notability grounds; the additional discussion on this page convinces me that the article should be deleted. (However, I would respectfully suggest to Dr. Denham that he should probably not complain about conflict of interest, since this article was originally written, later edited, and strongly defended here by users who are admittedly affiliated with TMIT.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject is not a public person enough to compel a strong case for having an article, so I think we should follow his wishes and delete the article. People deserve consideration of their privacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 5 June 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.


 * Sorry for posting here. I just made a stub article for National Quality Forum having forgotten that there is a Denham connection to that organization. NQF is a major national player in health politics and I made their stub as I was listing organizations to populate Health_care_quality. Sorry, now I am stepping away from that stub too.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)