Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Caton (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg Caton
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP / new user who had trouble completing the nomination. The reason for deletion is given below. (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Statement

Deletion of this BLP is proposed for the following reasons:

1. Unsourced claims. This article contains numerous unsourced claims, indicated by "[citation needed]," "[chronology source needed]," and "[dubious – discuss]." One even says, "On XXXX[chronology source needed]..."

These unsourced claims account for over half the paragraphs in the article.

WP:BLP is clear that unsourced material is not permitted:


 * Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced--­whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable--­should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. WP:BLP

Moreover, many of the sources are primary (original documents) that are not referenced to a secondary source, and the secondary sources are from a small group of news media (several references to PRNewswire, a couple to BusinessWeek, one to Parade magazine), contrary to WP policy:


 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. WP:OR


 * Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. WP:BLP

WP:N/CA says, "multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources" and "ideal sources are books and scholarly articles offering substantial treatment of the individual and the background for their involvement."

According to WP:BLP, "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to."

2. Mention of uninvolved people. The article mentions Caton's ex-wife, current wife, and minor son, along with the dates of the marriages. It also mentions his grandfather. These are contrary to Wikipedia policy:


 * The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. WP:BLP


 * Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. WP:BLP

3. Superfluous structure. Two sections ("Issues related to Federal Charges" and "Background on legal issues" have vague titles and only one or two sentences in them.

4. Not notable. To the extent Caton is known, it results from his entanglement with the FDA. However, Wikipedia policies point out that this is not sufficient to warrant an article:


 * Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. WP:BLP


 * In accordance with WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, perpetrators and victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically inherit the notability of such crimes nor do they automatically qualify as being notable enough to have stand-alone articles solely based on their status as perpetrators or victims. However, the victims and/or perpetrators of notable crimes may have articles under certain conditions. Notability with regards to this is normally defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. WP:N/CA

Caton's problems with the FDA cannot be considered a "high-profile crime" or "notable crime."


 * If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." WP:ONEEVENT

Not only is this "one event," but many of the sources are not reliable (i.e., nonexistent).

Caton's one event was his entanglement with the FDA. Although this occurred over an extended period, it is still one event, and he would not be known otherwise. Although he has some minor accomplishments, he would be unknown if not for his problems with the FDA.

Just deleting the material related to points 1, 2, and 3 would leave a very short article, even more unfocused than it already is, and would not address the notability problem.

Finemrespice (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think I'll wait for a 25 words or less argument. Mandsford 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 25-word or less argument as requested - deletion may be warranted because he fails WP:GNG as the only coverage he has received is in violation of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. I'm currently neutral. Claritas § 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If I get the gist of things, I believe the nominator feels that the subject of the article is lacking in notability outside one event, and that there are unsourced items in the article that could be damaging to others related to the subject. If I'm incorrect, please feel free to correct me. And apologies to Mandsford are due, as I went over 25 words. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and consider me Neutral as well. However I should point out that there are some sources that are in the previous afd that may be useful for this discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize the arguments had to be 25 words or less; the info page seemed to stress citing relevant WP policies, and I thought I'd seen longer arguments. However, Claritas and Umbralcorax, thanks for your contributions. I'd revise Umbralcorax's summary slightly, as follows:


 * Subject of the article lacks notability outside one event, and the article contains numerous unsourced claims, including some that could be damaging to others related to the subject. Finemrespice (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we were just joking around. Did not mean to come off as snarky. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true, we are all just joking. It's kind of a fine line between not saying too little and missing an argument, or saying so much that people misunderstand  (one of the reasons that we all talk in these cute little abbreviations like "WP:N" and "WP:BLP1E".  I'm concerned about claims that could be damaging to other people.  Mandsford 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article subject meets notability test, validated in earlier request for speedy deletion. Individual is well known, published and iconic in relation to Vegan foods, GMO controversey, alt-med, legal issues surrounding FDA regulations and cancer issues - to name a few.  Recent dialogue has been infused with emotion in regards to perceived bias in article. Jettparmer (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Original deletion discussion Articles for Deletion - Greg Caton Jettparmer (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nominator of the earlier AfD reversed his vote for deletion in response to the appearance of new sources, but these were generally inappropriate under WP policies (see point 1 above). Therefore, there were no votes for deletion. This article has changed significantly since the earlier deletion posting, but the sources still have the same problems with establishing notability and with suitability for a BLP. Also, the subject's "iconic" status in vegan foods is such that there's no mention of it in the article. He wrote one book on the topic, self-published, now out of print. Giving a talk at a biotech symposium does not confer notability. The rest is FDA problems. Finemrespice (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing to Keep, see below) Get this guy outta here. Most of the article and references are about his legal troubles, plea bargains, bankruptcies, moving offshore to avoid regulation, etc. - it  all makes him sound like a total quack. Either he is a quack and shouldn't be here, or he is not a quack and this article violates BLP guidelines. Either way, delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ouch! I think Caton makes more of an impact as an entrepeneur in the food business who eventually got into trouble through expanding his markets.  There seems to be some notability for him beyond the current sensational arrest - it's simply what piqued my interest in him originally.  Jettparmer (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this article violates BLP guidelines, then it shouldn't be so hard to bring it in line with BLP guidelines. --Dyuku (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." — Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut (1953-1994), late of CalTech Finemrespice (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - So why don't you try some practice, such as fixing the article. --Dyuku (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you think it shouldn't be hard, feel free to try. Finemrespice (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Obviously, since the US govt thinks this guy is so important that they created a big international incident with his deportation, then he's important! --Dyuku (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm changing my "delete" vote to "keep", based on updates to the article that make it a little more clear just who and what this guy is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for the editorial contribution! Jettparmer (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." WP:N


 * "[I]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." WP:N


 * It was not a "big international incident," and bringing him back from S. America does not confer notability. Finemrespice (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The rationale for deletion is false: the article is sourced, if the overall tone is negative that is simply a reflection of the real world, which apparently considers this gentleman to be a snake oil salesman. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well said! --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You may want to take another look at the rationale for deletion. The article doesn't meet Wikipedia's own policies for sourcing or notability. At the risk of repeating myself:
 * 1. Many statements are literally unsourced (e.g., "[citation needed]").
 * 2. Many others use primary sources without reference from a secondary.
 * 3. Still others use multiple references from a small number of sources rather than multiple sources, such as Parade, BusinessWeek, and PRNewswire—not exactly "scholarly articles offering substantial treatment of the individual...."
 * 4. It mentions uninvolved people. "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members...."
 * 5. It was written mostly by a person who admits to a "dim view of alternative medicine." Therefore, if, as you agree, the overall tone is negative, it's reasonable to assume the author has chosen to present it that way. "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once...."
 * 6. This is not even to mention the notability issue. Finemrespice (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Comment: I just noticed that Finemrespice, the nominator here, is an SPA. I also just noticed that he/she appears to be the only advocate here for deleting the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Response
 * 1. If the tone of the article is negative about this person, it is because the reality is negative - as brilliantly pointed out by Guy. Any negative tone is not the result of someone "choosing to present it that way," it is a matter of public record. Mr. Caton himself admitted (through his guilty plea) that he is guilty of defrauding customers and violating FDA regulations. Mr. Caton himself admitted (in his patent application) that he was in violation of his probation. And it's not some Wikipedia editor saying that his "cancer cure" is worthless; it's the United States Food and Drug Administration. If we can't quote the FDA on something like that, who can we quote?
 * 2. Far from being biased against him, the article bends over backward to give his side, supported by non-neutral references like Natural News.
 * 3. I don't know where you got the claim above that he has to be the subject of "scholarly" articles. That's not a requirement, except for academics, which he is not. The requirement is that he be the subject of "significant coverage in independent reliable sources." Things like Parade Magazine and Business Week are independent reliable sources, and they have definitely given him significant coverage.
 * 4. I agree with you about his family members, and it might be a good idea if somebody deleted the references to his wife and son. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Comment: An SPA so far—I had to open an account to post an AfD. However, as WP:SPA points out, "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, perhaps we can "Assume good faith." (WP:AGF))
 * (SPA is not an accusation of wrongoing, it is a statement of fact: "This user has made few or no contributions outside of this topic." That is a true statement with regard to you. Our editing histories are an open book here. Yours confirms that you registered as a Wikipedia editor purely for the purpose of deleting this article, and that has been your sole focus here. That is not a criticism, it is a material fact, to be evaluated by the closing administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)  )
 * (I said nothing to imply that I thought SPA was an accusation of wrongdoing. However, you're coming late to the party—there's a history here you're unaware of.) Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as being the only vote for deletion, there was only one in the earlier AfD (until the commenter reversed it). You yourself were for it before you were against it. And two people are neutral, which means they don't oppose deletion. However, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." (WP:AFD) Finemrespice (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Response
 * 1. I'm glad you also agree that the overall tone is negative. However, your argument represents a logical fallacy. If you have experience writing, you know that the selection of facts and the words used to describe them determine the tone of the piece. Since you're seeing only what the author decided was relevant, you don't know about facts that may have been omitted because they don't correspond to his agenda.
 * Actually, I researched the guy myself and I have made several edits based on that research. It was based on that research that I changed my mind. Earlier I wanted the article deleted because it made him sound like a quack. After independent research, I decided that if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck... --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response in the next paragraph. Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as believing what the press or any government agency says, I'm old enough to have acquired a healthy dose of skepticism. Caton points out that he signed the plea bargain reluctantly, because he felt he had no choice, even though it wasn't accurate. He never disputed that he violated probation (and explains why).


 * The FDA is known for its advocacy of, and revolving-door relationship with, the pharmaceutical industry. Many books have been written about this, including by doctors and insiders. If nothing else, the recent revelations about the relationship between the oil (and coal and timber) companies and their ostensible "regulators" at MMS and Interior, the biotech industry and USDA, and the banking industry and the Fed should convey the problem by analogy if you're not aware of it. The phenomenon is known as "regulatory capture."
 * Most advocates of alternative and unapproved medications (in which group I think you probably fall) are great advocates of conspiracy theories. They believe that Big Medicine and Big Government are conspiring to suppress effective treatments. They have to believe this, because it is the only way they can explain why (if their treatments are so effective) doctors and pharmaceutical companies have not embraced them. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You want to watch out for sweeping generalizations—it undercuts your claim to objectivity. And as Henry Kissinger said, "Even paranoids have enemies." From what I've seen, most advocates of conventional medicine (in which group I think you probably fall) think everything is fine as is, even though hundreds of thousands of people die every year from doctor error and adverse drug reactions; the only acceptable tools are drugs, surgery, and radiation; the cost is astronomical; and the results are unimpressive. Many doctors are, in fact, interested in holistic medicine; others are unable to escape the effect of their schooling or their state medical boards, which are typically a bastion of conservatism. We know why pharmaceutical companies are uninterested in holistic remedies: they can't patent them.


 * If you can't extrapolate from the collusion between other industries and government (Regulatory Capture is, in fact, a Wikipedia article), you might be interested in this quote from an article by Shannon Brownlee in the April 2004 Washingtonian: "More than 60 percent of clinical studies—those involving human subjects—are now funded not by the federal government, but by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. That means that the studies published in scientific journals like Nature and The New England Journal of Medicine ... are increasingly likely to be designed, controlled, and sometimes even ghost-written by marketing departments, rather than academic scientists." Not such a ringing endorsement. Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. See 1. "Bends over backward" is in the eye of the beholder. If you consider Natural News "non-neutral," what about the reference to Natural Causes: Death, Lies and Politics in America's Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry? Fox News is a mainstream outlet—would you consider them a neutral source if they were quoted?
 * I have accepted Fox News many times in the past. My point was that Caton's defenders are represented and quoted in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must have missed them. Still can't find them. Finemrespice (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3. I notice that a number of people here think they know what a WP policy says, perhaps having looked at it at some point, but aren't familiar with the actual wording or details, which may not say what they think it says. The claim about "scholarly articles" is from WP:N/CA (quoted in point 1 of the nomination statement), which perhaps you would agree is relevant here. An article in Parade and a review in BusinessWeek about a book that mentions the subject hardly constitute "significant coverage."
 * This article appears fully in compliance with WP:N/CA. I have said my say. You have said yours. I will leave any further evaluation of sources to other readers here - and to the closing administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. I agree. Feel free. Finemrespice (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (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.