Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (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   no consensus to delete this article. Skomorokh, barbarian  12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Press
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article constitutes original research and is doomed to that fate. Also, the notability of the subject is not demonstrated.
 * The article cites no references that actually mention the subject other than one patent.
 * The primary editor of the article is probably the single best person in the world to know of the existence of any secondary sources verifying the claims in the article&mdash;yet there are none.
 * The thrust of the article is inference and interpretation of referenced facts, but the claims are only indirectly supported.
 * Beyond the patent, none of the references other than directories even mentions the subject. Notability is not established.

If the main point of this article is ever published as fact in a reliable source, then (depending on the depth of coverage) the subject could be covered as notable and in an article that is not original research with reference to that source. Until then, this article cannot form part of any encyclopedia.

It is worth noting that the "facts" assembled as synthesis can give inaccurate or one-sided impressions of the situation. For example, this article makes no mention of the fact that Press sued Forest, but lost at the summary judgement phase (see this book). Does that make the claims in this article wrong? Maybe, maybe not&mdash;but it certainly demonstrates why an encyclopedia is not the place for original research. Bongo  matic  00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is plenty of assertion of notability, but unfortunately it is not borne out by the sources. Uniformly except the patent, the references presented support only ancillary points, leaving the main thrust of each paragraph as unsupported original research. References 13 and 15 are to the same article, which discusses Nitroglyn but not Press.
 * Going by the version at time of AfD, the problems with this article may be summed up by examining the final two sentences. Reference 18 is an obituary of Lowey and makes no mention Press or any controversy. Gaping NPOV flaws and original synthesis are no reason to delete an article, but if synthesis and original research are intrinsic to the article due to an almost complete absence of mention in independent reliable sources, then no article on this topic is possible.
 * This is a neat story, and I would like to see it kept iff it can be substantiated by sources covering Press himself rather than only events or facts tangential to the main topic of the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - help improve it!!


 * If my opinion is worth hearing. I have several points to make, and our colleague Bongo's constant and less than constructive flagging everything, and biting comments, has assisted me in making at least one of them:


 * FIRST; the reference that shows that H. Press ultimately lost in a fight with FOREST labs, has nothing to do with the issues  involving KEY corp which released the first sustained release products, originally under a license from Press. AS I understand from Mr. Press, it was KEY which conspired to deal with Forrest, which ultimately let the cat out of the bag, on which all the others jumped  to also to steal Press' thunder....and thus  the reference to Press's loss to Forrest, only serves to obfuscate what we DO have as facts, so ably pointed out by WikiDan when he WITHDREW the first AfD, i.e. that  Press  filed FIRST for patent, and as I elsewhere pointed out, that patent  which we now know was awarded after Lowey's "me too" patent, was a PROCESS  patent, and thus ALL it is not synthesis, but BLACK LETTER LAW, that all subsequent applications  of the concept of "sustained release" were  based on that "prior art".   This is incontrovertible THAT PRESS WAS FIRST TO PATENT..... and it would appear this was understood  by WikiDan when he withdrew the first AfD after realizing that; and,


 * SECOND; lack of objectivity, and who knows what other motives.... on the part of Bongo, who has attacked every article I have written, or edited; even to the point of attacking an article  written by DigitalC, when  he completely re-wrote  one that I erroneously posted as a newbie (see )... I think his biting remarks...  in the talk page....  ""Interview"? Give us all a break! Bongomatic 23:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)", shows his attitude towards this writer.


 * FINALLY; I have asked for a fair amount of time, (perhaps a few weeks) to investigate the Remington's article, that, I think supported my assertions...  I had it in my possession and lost to a book borrower who never returned it. Check it out yourselves, it's hard to find an old copy of this tome. I am searching.


 * So, let's work together to further document this. I feel that the very fact of the patent, and that it was filed for FIRST, is sufficient to merit SOME kind of article, lest lowey and forrest will have stolen not only his fair compensation during his lifetime, but even the man's legacy for having truly changed the way medication  is administered.


 * Drsjpdc (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The above comment demonstrates that the primary contributor to this article believes that Wikipedia is a place for original research, and is seeking time to improve the quality of that research (don't get me wrong&mdash;improvement in accuracy is a good thing even if OR). The comment demonstrates no understanding of the OR policy whatsoever. Since he believes that I'm out to get him, perhaps an uninvolved editor could attempt to explain the OR policy to him in a neutral fashion? Bongo  matic  22:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As the sign say in the psychiatrist's office; "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you".... here's yet another eference to Bongo's attempts to remove everything I write...    this one survived AfD. But he even challenged by COI, that it was a conflict that I once was a board member of a tenant that moved in there, long after I was not involved with the tenant's Board. The facility is owned by the IOC and the City of Lausanne... QED?
 * Drsjpdc (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep on its merits. I'm not going to referee the local combatants, or the patent claimants either. A substantial claim for this invention is supported adequately by sources, and amounts to notability, but the present article is indeed a little one sided in an obvious way.    DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Claim for an invention does not establish notability under WP:BIO or WP:PROF (being awarded a patent is explicitly mentioned as not being grounds for inclusion), and doesn't get any mentions under WP:OUTCOMES. Bongo  matic  07:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per no reliable secondary sources that address the subject in detail (please feel free to prove me wrong). Also I dislike the conflict of interest associated with someone writing an article about their father, in particular with this comment on the talk page expressing that COI is irrelevant, as he may be the only person on the planet who knows the story, which by definition, is failure to pass the general notability guidelines and reliable source guidelines, and the  verifiability policy.--kelapstick (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So Help make this right. Anyone know off hand who was [Elisha Gray]? Alexander G. Bell beat him to the patent office (by maybe a day?) and got ALL the credit. But Gray probably was the real inventor of the telephone. In this case, Press  was the first to file for a patent, and Lowey took his ideas, ran to the patent office a little later, then produced products  using Press' patent, and TOOK all the credit and the financial reward.


 * Can't we get past the COI issue to not punish a man whose life work was stolen. What COI can I really have? It is long past any statute of limitations for re-opening the lawsuits, so there's no monetary motive. The man is dead, and I stand to get no personal gain, or aggrandisement from this. It's just to see what's right, finally see the light of day.


 * Drsjpdc (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, lots of people know who Elisha Gray is, because that article is sufficiently referenced to assert notability and verifiability. No one here is denying that Howard Press may have gotten a bum deal, but getting a bum deal does not make one inherently notable.  Receiving significant coverage in reliable third party sources asserts notability, and that is lacking in this case.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about a COI issue. This is about not having enough sources that discuss Howard Press and the patent issue. How many of the sources actually mention Press? DigitalC (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the above statement, it appears that you are stating that since this story has not been published elsewhere, it should be available here in Wikipedia. This is a direct statement that this article is intended to be original research.
 * Instead of doing original work here, the appropriate course would be to write a fully-referenced article for publication elsewhere. If it's published in a reliable journal, then a Wikipedia article (even if you write it, per WP:COS) can cite that source.
 * If your view is that that's more difficult, that's correct&mdash;and that's how it's supposed to be. Original research is supposed to be held to a high standard of research, while Wikipedia is supposed to be referenced to have facts and interpretations that are uncontroversially supported by references. Bongo  matic  23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, nowhere above do I imply that original research is acceptable. What I was trying to do was to inform Drsjpdc that the problem is not one of COI, rather that the references are insufficient. DigitalC (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry DigitalC, that the message wasn't clear&mdash;it was a reply to Drsjpdc's comment above starting with "So Help make this right". Bongo  matic  01:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I really don’t understand the argument. The guy unquestionably filed his patent first. It was a process patent. So, that means that any product made with anything remotely time release was based on Press’ ideas, and almost certainly violated his intellectual rights.  I really don’t begin to understand how that guy got away with taking the credit from Press, but he was clearly second.  I doubt that this could happen in today’s courts. Further, just as obviously, he stood on  Press’ back to make himself famous.  Just from the perspective of  the fact that Press’ concept created a sea change in the delivery of medication, and it was a major contribution to pharmacy, medicine and therefore to all humanity, I think this article should stand, and if necessary, let’s improve it through collaborative effort.  I do however, agree with DGG that this article is written from a somewhat non-objective viewpoint, and I think that we try to resolve that. Waynethegoblin (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: — Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - DigitalC (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article's claims of intellectual rights infringement are weak at best. Press brought his invention to Lowey because he didn't have the funds to develop it himself.  So this is either a case of Press not properly protecting his rights when he asked Lowey to develop the process, or it's a case of Lowey claiming credit (but not actually infringing on Press' patent).  In either case, that one fact (which is poorly documented at best) is not sufficient to raise Press to the level of notability generally required by Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Waynethegoblin is also undertaking original research and synthesis. The latest edit to the article's talk page shows the futility of trying to do original research here. This is simply not a venue where competing ideas about content can effectively be debated. Bongo  matic  16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - In light of the interesting research showing that there WAS prior art; and based on WikiDan's last analysis, as well as (G-d, I hate to admit this) Bongo, who  said
 * Instead of doing original work here, the appropriate course would be to write a fully-referenced article for publication elsewhere. If it's published in a reliable journal, then a Wikipedia article (even if you write it, per WP:COS) can cite that source.

, I have to agree to delete the page. I do plan to take that advice, and try to get some kind of article published elsewhere...

So, if I could ask that whichever admin deletes, also userfy's the article in place of the copy I placed in my sandbox... I would appreciate that.

Oh, let me say that I appreciate all the effort that those who actually looked at this earnestly, gave to the project. Thanks, Sincerely.

I struck out my previous comment, capitulating, because I had not reviewed the actual patents... In the discussion I rebutted the above idea that Press was not first, as follows: not synthesis but facts...

What I said there was: However, the fact is that Consolazio's patent was not for the purpose of releasing medication over time, for the therapeutic purpose of providing medication for an extended period. He expressly states that this "honeycomb" matrix he created was for the purpose of "preventing gastric irritation" (see Lines 15-20, Col 1, Pg 1 of his patent)caused by releasing all the salt at once. Thus, the crux of this patent's effect on the field, is that, although it was a generally good idea, he never put two and two together. Moreover, his matrix would never have been suitable to the sustained release purpose developed by Press.

As to the idea that Lowey's patent was the first to mention ethylcellulose; Press' patent, which was clearly for a process (see  lines 50-75, col 2, page 1) was intended to cover ANY such substrate, by which the medication could be slowly released (presumably including ethylcellulose, or whatever)  (See also  Lines 38-50, Col 2, Pag 2) and in fact even covered systems by which a permeable membrane would MUCH later be used (see lines 60-65, Col 2, Pg2)...  as such, and since it WAS filed before Lowey's, it was actually, to be fair, the first to enunciate this PURPOSE and entire PROCESS.... this (admitted supposition) had to be from where Lowey got his idea... and ran to patent a PRODUCT. It turns out that a product patent is legally easier to defend than a process patent, and it may well be that Press was either poorly legally advised, or honestly that greed was at some level in his mind, but it seems that THIS, not the invention per se, was the reason that Lowey ultimately got the credit. Д-р СДжП,ДС 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I somewhat regret raising the point of the validity of Press' patent claim. That isn't really the point of this discussion.  The point here is that, whether or not Press' claims are valid, there is not enough significant coverage of the event to rate a Wikipedia article.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Drsjpdc. The mere fact that Press’ was the first US patent to address this critical use of time release, and thus was the basis for all further patents using any other systems for control of medication dosages over specific amounts of time, makes it notable per se, and therefore the news coverage of that “event” should be irrelevant. Waynethegoblin (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the proposition that this patent "was the first US patent to address this critical use of time release" etc. is not supported by any third-party coverage and constitutes original research. There is not even primary source reference to support this proposition (and even were there, such a proposition is sufficiently controversial that primary sources would not be sufficient for Wikipedia's standards). Moreover, this proposition is specifically contested, with citations to reliable sources provided. So we have a presumption that it is wrong until and unless authority for it can be identified in reliable sources.
 * Again, this is why Wikipedia is a bad place for original claims. Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bongo. And just when we started to get along...tsk, tsk... :) I guess you didn't read my analysis of the patents above... I quoted the exact lines which show conclusively that Consolazio's patent really had NOTHING to do with time release  of a specific dosage of medication for that purpose. And how and where it states that Press' was for the process, not for a specific product. I can't imagine that citing the US Government's Patent Office is not in and of itself a  valid reference, as THEY  had to review this and don't just give patents to whomever, for whatever. That is not original research, and it certainly a "reliable source".  I was almost ready to give up this fight, until I actually read the two patents. Consolazio clearly had no idea to use his "matrix" to dose medications in specific amounts for treatment of specific conditions...  Press was certainly the first to do that.
 * Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analysis may be correct. This is not the place for analysis that requires knowledge of the subject to evaluate. This is a place to cite sources that state the claims made in the article. That is the definition of what is not original research.
 * And by the way, the US patent office regularly issues patents that would not be enforceable upon actual litigation&mdash;just like us here, they are not actually experts on every single technology. The only thing the patent can be used to cite is that X was issued a patent for Y&mdash;not even X was issued the first patent for Y&mdash;that is original research unless it is backed up by reliable sources. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  05:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete An article about a regular guy who led a regular life and did something like all of us regular people, but nothing noteworthy. The article reads like a vanity article because, as for most regular people, not much has been published about him or by him. Nothing evil going on here, just a regular guy and a regular deletion. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this right; the man literally changes the way medication is delivered for all time,  as important as Jenner's vaccination method, and its proven with the first process patent issued by the US Government, and we are forgetting him and thereby at least tacitly SUPPORTING the plagiarist of his work, because the plagiarist got all the media? That's the bottom line. Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, if Howard Press made the mark that Jenner made, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Wikipedia is a poor but occasionally used device to correct perceived injustices (see Nobel Prize controversies, which  is filled with both tragic as well as whiney tales).  My sense is that Wikipedia is not the right place to address those slights.  This person lived a fairly routine business life: people invent stuff, people patent, people steal ideas, people start companies, people are convinced that their contributions are notable ... But those are just my views.  On a more official Wikipedia level, the case for notability seems to completely lack verifiability.  I searched the Journal of Controlled Release for "Howard Press" and got no hits. On a gentler note, there is no rush: the drug delivery world is highly sophisticated and organized, and if there was a particularly notable contribution, it is likely to get picked up, e.g. a review entitled "Contributions of Howard Press."  Academicians are very good at uncovering original discoverers of important technologies because discovering discoverers is a form of scholarship.  But as Bongomatic pointed out above, Wikipedia is an inappropriate forum for such research.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I checked Ullmann's Encyclopedia on controlled release (Paul Zanowiak “Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms” Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 2002, Wiley-VCH. ).  The review does not mention Press, but there is no clearcut history section.  The 61 references in this review do not include mention of Press.  It does cite this source for background: “Sustained- and Controlled-Release Drug Delivery Systems” in G. S. Banker, C. T. Rhodes (eds.): Modern Pharmaceutics, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, New York 1990.  Perhaps this source, which I dont have access to, would describe Press's contributions.  I tried to find him mentioned anywhere aside from here - still nothing.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge what is sourced and relevant to the sustained release article (which, by the way, is not in good shape) and then delete the rest. It seems a BLP1E,and an unsourced one. As much as I am usually reluctant to delete usually, the lack of sources (no gnews,no gbooks as far as I can find) about this person unfortunately leaves little options. There is a claim for notability for sure, but the relevant information can be merged in the invention article, at least until more sources come out. It could be a good idea to userfy the article to the creator user page or to incubate it, anyway. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - if the claims made in the article lead section are backed up by sources, he's notable and shouldn't be deleted. If they're not, delete those claims and then bring it back to AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Bongomatic has visited my talk page to politely ask me to further explain my keep argument. What I'm saying is that, in my view, if he genuinely has invented "a process for time release or sustained release medication", that would arguably be "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:ANYBIO criterion 2.  Having asserted that notability and provided a source for it, it's open to present contrary viewpoints on the article but not appropriate to debate it by means of a proposed deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. Thanks for your clarification. I disagree with this approach in a couple of ways:
 * The suggestion that inventing "a process for time release or sustained release medication" is inherently a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring record is false. Being "widely recognized" requires "wide recognition", which this article doesn't demonstrate&mdash;in fact, it demonstrates the opposite.
 * The equation of the AfD process with the proposed deletion process is misleading. This process exists for editors to opine on the validity of a claim of notability, not merely the existence of such a claim (the latter being the criterion for speedy nominations and proposed deletion nominations). The text of article itself need not reflect the consensus opinion on the validity of such a claim for the consensus to emerge and be valid.
 * <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  07:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the fact it's a dreadfully written article (again, not an AfD issue) certainly doesn't help. From the debate above and on the talk page, it seems to be agreed that (1) he filed a patent, (2) it was similar or the same as Lowey's, and (3) he filed it before Lowey.  That's sufficient to found a claim that he did, in fact, beat Lowey to the punch, which would (in my opinion) justify the claim of notability.  Probably the article needs to be rewritten so that it reads, "Howard Press is a (whatever) who claims to be the inventor of (x)", and then a considerably more NPOV examination of that claim.  But the claim isn't (on the cited sources) obviously provable as false, and is very significant if true.  The encyclopaedia is better served by a detailed consideration of that claim on the article page, citing sources for each viewpoint, than it is by a deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This form of argument is tantamount to original research itself. DustFormsWords says that the claimed invention, if true, imputes notability on its inventor. In other words, this editor's own view is substituted for "wide recognition". <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not my intention. We have wide, well-sourced notability for Lowey's invention, we have notability for the author of that invention, thought to be Lowey.  If the author of the invention is, in fact, Press rather than Lowey, the existing sources would attest to his notability.  But look, I'm not saying that Press is the inventor - I'm just saying that I've not had anything drawn to my attention that, to reasonable minds, would irrefutably settle the claim that he is.  And that debate is capable of occurring on the article page, so it should.  I've made my argument; those against (including Bongomatic) have intelligently and politely made theirs.  I'm not much invested and I'm content for the closing admin to weigh up those arguments that have been put and make the call. Thanks for the intriguing debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden is on those wishing to keep the article to provide sources that establish Press's notability. This debate belongs at AfD, not on the talk page. The lack of reliable sources that discuss this individual or his purported invention means that this article cannot pass Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All my colleagues are conveniently discounting the fact that the US Patent Office itself should be a significant source, for the following issues:
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article contains many sources, including this article from The New York Times, but the majority of them (including the NYT article) don't even mention Howard Press. The article is primarily composed of original research. If any parts of the article were useful, I would recommend a merge to sustained release per Cyclopia, but the lack of sources that discuss Howard Press being the "the first to develop a process for time release or sustained release medication" means that this assertion is original research. The rest of the sources and assertions in the article also violate Synthesis and Original research. Original research does not belong on Wikipedia, so this should be deleted. Incubation would be helpful if this article could be improved, but due to the lack of sources, I strongly doubt that this is possible. Howard Press fails WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO because there are no sources that would allow him to pass WP:GNG, and there are no sources that verify the claim that his patent contributed much to his academic field. If he did indeed contribute much to his field, I would expect some sources on Google Scholar; however, there are none. My own searches for sources on Google News Archive (1, 2, and 3) and Google Books (1, 2, and 3) return no valid sources that could be used to construct a biography, so I conclude that Howard Press is non-notable. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable. In many countries, certain subject areas are excluded from patents, such as business methods and mental acts. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.[1]

Unless we can simply assume that the US Government failed to do their job here, or that the US Patent Office simply issues patents willy-nilly to whomever files first, and your argument is that they issued a process patent (which I would argue is ITSELF  synthesis)  to someone who was not the FIRST, then QED, per se, "Notability".

What Lowey's later patent was for; regardless of what method he used to adhere his stuff to the stomach wall, was a per se violation of Press' patent. Read it. Press' application was careful to include ANY method or substance by which a medicament could be dispensed over time. Not limited to Cellulose nitrate; thus INCLUDED Ethyl cellulose. This was one of the reasons that Press sued Forrest Laboratories.

Oh, and by the way, in Google Scholar, one of the first listings is Press' patent, and then they list that there were at least six other patents later which cited Press'  prior art in their won applications. So, it should be clear that Press' existence WAS noted by honest inventors coming later. Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The fact that the US Patent Office issued a patent is verifiable. However, the fact that US Patent Office issued a patent to Press does not support any notability. DigitalC (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concurring comment: The U.S. Patent office issues "hundreds of thousands" of patents annually. []. Getting a patent is a helpful but insufficient basis for notability, otherwise millions of people are also notable, and this analysis does not include patents in other countries.  So in the same spirit that a badly written article is no grounds for AfD, merely having a patent is no grounds for opposing an AfD.  My understanding is that patent lawyers, unlike Wikipedia editors, are required to acknowledge any hint of "prior art," (i.e. patents and publications), regardless of notability.  --Smokefoot (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: While the article certainly has claims to notability, there are no references to build an article around. The only substantial reference is the patent. Where are the references that mention Press, and the importance of his discovery? If the claims are true, and enough original research could be built, it could probably be published in a pharmaceutical journal. However, until something is published elsewhere, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. DigitalC (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another editor added additional information about Press. While if the article is kept, this information is certainly pertinent, it&mdash;alone or in combination with the other verifiable information in the article&mdash;doesn't establish notability. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DigitalC. It is such a mess and a POV/troll magnet. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, And Continue To Improve The Article: I am not in favor of deletionism and feel that the subject, whether a minor or major criminal historically, did play a role in the development of sustained release medication. I have done considerable factual research on the topic thus far, and find his life fascinating. His whole life story should be known, including the kind of person he really was. Furthermore, we are still learning more every day, so as the article is in great flux, let us make the decision to hold off on deleting it but rather keep it with as many factual additions as possible. For example, it would be helpful if the author, Drsjpdc, who has "had many, many personal interviews with Mr. Press during his lifetime" would further elaborate on the subject's criminal past. That aspect of his life is the most compelling, verifiable, and incontrovertible.--Rikatazz (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) — Rikatazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Rikatazz, your commentary actually demonstrates why the article must be deleted. You have identified that this article is solely the product of original research. Contrary to your desired approach, the article should be deleted, and if and when the subject's life has been described in independent reliable sources, then a Wikipedia article on him could meet the policies and guidelines. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - further to my existing keep vote, the new material added to the article that asserts a course of well-documented and continuing criminal conduct is a separate, independent ground of notability, that by itself satisfieds WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The new material does not establish notability. None of the additional sources mention Howard Press; those sources only mention "General Pharmacal" (see this one) (ref #20) as an example. Again, the new paragraph is composed of original research because none of the sources even mention Howard Press. WP:V, a core policy of Wikipedia, is not met, so this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cunard is correct&mdash;these arguments about notability are canards. The problems with this article are not limited to notability guidelines, but go straight to the core policies of verifiability and no original research. These have not been addressed by any of the commentators opining "keep". <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we're on the same page, Cunard and Bongomatic; the new material is quite extensively sourced not only to Newsweek and the New York Times but also to the transcripts of the criminal prosecutions, which mention Press specifically as the accused. They're the most reliable, independent sources you can get and they attest to his conviction for a series of very serious offences over a sustained length of time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Newsweek source does not mention Press, while the New York Times article is inaccessible. Even if the NYT article, titled Six Drug Men Indicted, Charged with Counterfeiting Trademarks on Pills, mentioned Press, this would still not establish notability. There is no indication that Press passes Notability (criminal acts). He fails #1 because he is not notable for anything besides the crime. He fails #2 because he is not "a renowned world figure"; if he were, there would be reliable sources about him. He fails #3 because the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is not unusual or noteworthy; if it were noteworthy, there would be reliable sources that discuss its uniqueness. Because that paragraph and the rest of the article relies on original research, there is no way to determine if the information is inaccurate. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith for the offline sources. (Given it's an event from 1960 I'm not expecting online sources to exist.)  The Newsweek article refers to a company which Press provably had control of. Notability (criminal acts) is presented as an exception to WP:BLP1E, which doesn't apply here because it's not a single event, it's a sustained course of conduct including multiple events and thus inappropriate to create an article about the event which Press can be merged to.  He meets the general notability criteria in relation to the prosecutions, which is to say coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Press is not mentioned in the NYT articles. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  05:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In "Joseph O. Haff, "Bogus Pills Laid to 3 in Hoboken," The New York Times, August 6, 1960"? If you're prepared to say that you've gone to archives somewhere and checked it out, and it doesn't contain mention of him, I'll take that in good faith.  But given we have another article verifiaby suggesting a police action on that day in that area involving Press' company, I'd otherwise assume the article listed does indeed mention Press or his company. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. He appears to be mentioned in that one, but not in the other NYT article. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  05:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have access to the NY Times articles:
 * 1) In the "Bogus Pills Laid to Three in Hoboken" article, 4th & 5th paragraphs:
 * Arrest of Executives. William Etis, 29 years old, of 4010 Saxon Avenue, the Bronx general manager of the plant, was arrested in the June 27 raid. On the following day Howard A. Press, 37, of 54 Tenafly Road, Tenafly, N.J., the concern's president, and Isidore Rutstein, 78, of 70 Normal Place, Tenafly, said to be Press' partner, were taken into custody.
 * 2) In the "6 Drug Men Indicted" article, 3rd paragraph:
 * The men indicted include Howard Press, 37 year-old-president of the company, which was raided by state authorities last June 27; Isidor Rutstein, 76, and William Etis, 29, all company officers; Paul Chosid of the Bronx, N.Y., and Herman Witleshoser of Yonkers, and Leonard Mirrof of the Bronx.


 * You will note that Howard A. Press of 54 Tenafly Road, Teaneck, NJ is the same address given on Press's patent.
 * Cunard, you are not correct at all; these sources and plenty others (including materials from the FDA Reporter which are accessible online) all describe a notorious drug counterfeiting ring in New Jersey in the 1960s where Press was the kingpin. DustFormWords is absolutely correct that the new material is perhaps the most extensively researched and reliable information we have on this topic.--Rikatazz (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2009 (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.