Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Wise


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

John A. Wise

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I declined a CSD:G10 speedy on this, but it does seem like a strange page. This person worked for a company which was investigated for its MLM sales practices and went bust (but that company doesn't have an article). Then he went to work for a NASDAQ quoted company, and the section on that just has excessive detail of his salary and stockholding. At the least, I don't think notability has been established - there are lots of sources, but I can't see any independent sources taking about him. And at worst, the article seems slanted towards disparagement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've now removed the details of his salary and stockholding, as they were undue private detail, and also unsourced (the source given was dead) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I originally listed it for Speedy delete as I consider it little more than a coat-rack attack piece, trying to push a certain POV about his current company based on his prior involvements. The same issue (involving the same editors) is occurring on that article Juice Plus and has been - listed on the BLP Noticeboard. As per WP:BLP standards need to be high for this article and they currently are not. I've been unable to find other independent RS sources to determine notability. --Icerat (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I was going to change my vote to "Keep" after the considerable number of new references added, however after checking through them I discovered none of these new references actually discuss the subject of the article, which is what is necessary to determine notability. The various SEC forms are not independent coverage. The Business Week profile is the only independent RS coverage of the man.--Icerat (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should it be assumed that Icerat simply forgot to mention what I wrote previously? Namely -- "and is featured prominently in this article in Inc Magazine which explained that Wise was responsible for product formulation while at USAI."
 * Umm, have you actually read the article? If so, we have wildly differing views of what "featured prominently" means. I'd call it "mentioned in passing". --Icerat (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To help those who haven't looked up the Inc Magazine source, it says "Fisher, John Wise -- who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology -- and the advisory board were all responsible for formulating United Sciences's products". There is no other mention of Wise. "Featured prominently"? No. "Responsible for product formulation"? Not solely. It pays to check the source! --TraceyR (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. Regardless of whether it is true that Mr Wise had personal responsibility for unlawful or unethical practices in his various employments, and I have no idea, we should not permit hinting at it in this way. If the sources were sufficiently robust, eg a criminal conviction and not a mere allegation, saying so might pass if he were otherwise notable, but would probably fail on WP:CRIMINAL or WP:EVENT anyway. --AJHingston (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is marginally notable, but notable nonetheless IMO. First, regarding the comment "This person worked for a company which was investigated for its MLM sales practices and went bust (but that company doesn't have an article)", the article in question does in fact exist United Sciences of America, Inc.. Secondly, Wise was featured prominently in regard to his connection with USAI in this article (which had been inexplicably deleted by Icerat) and in this article with respect to both USAI and Juice Plus. He also has an executive bio on Businessweek, is mentioned as a CRN award recipient, has numerous research publications (mostly on Juice Plus; see reference list), and is featured prominently in this article in Inc magazine which explained that Wise was responsible for product formulation while at USAI. I think there is clearly enough material to establish notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the United Sciences of America, Inc. link - not really sure why I failed to find that. New links might make a significant difference too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article RIR refers to as "inexplicably deleted" is a self-published article on a self-published website, and as per WP:BLPSPS has no place in a biography, though RIR continues to inexplicably dispute that "interpretation" of WP:BLP. It certainly doesn't contribute to notability. Being an author on published academic papers does not itself make oneself notable, (otherwise someone needs to start writing one one me and lots of other eminently unnotable people! ). In the Inc article he's mentioned once in passing. That leaves us with the businessweek executive bio and the CRN award. Not sure if that quite makes the grade, perhaps merge in to the United Sciences or Juice Plus article? --Icerat (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I come to this from outside, and am aware that I am wandering into the no man's land between two warring groups. I can see that Dr Wise is, or has been, engaged in activities that I just don't think would be possible on this side of the Atlantic, at least not on any significant scale. Our regulatory systems are apparently much stronger. But I am still struggling to see how he meets Wikipedia's notability standard. Look at it this way. If this article had been written by somebody supportive of his viewpoint, or at least the products he is involved in marketing, and his notability were challenged here, it would be said that his published papers fall well short of the standard for WP:ACADEMIC, that his part in the various companies he worked for was routine, that the business press mentions are little more than in passing when discussing the plans of his employers, and that the 'award' lacked substance. When I think of the much more distinguished careers of people who are rejected as not notable, I do have to ask why there is such a desire to include him. --AJHingston (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Considering the improvements to the article made by Rhode Island Red, I think it's quite clear that the guy is notable. And it's definitely not an attack page just because of that one comment. Silver  seren C 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the subject is not notable. Although as RS/N has determined, Barratt's publication is not SPS.  Does it violate BLP, probably not since it's published out there.  In any case, the subject is a minor footnote and can be merged with Juice Plus.  Shot info (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be completely closed to the idea of merging; however, the Wise article was originally spun out from the Juice Plus article quite a while back by Elonka (who commented below). At the time, I thought the subject was marginally notable enough for a separate article, but just marginally. If Wise's CV was a bit more mundane, I'd probably lean towards the POV that he is not notable, but his involvement with USAI is a pretty big deal, as are the insider connections with Juice Plus, a controversial and widely criticized product. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (noting that I created this article in 2007). The individual is notable, and the article well-sourced.  Though I'll also say that I'm distressed by the continuing disputes at the Juice Plus article, which are again overflowing to other parts of the project.  --Elonka 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The person is notable (he did have a profile on Forbes website after all) and not all the information in the article is dependent on just Bennett.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks as though a majority favor keeping the article. At what point do we close the discussion and remove the deletion tag from the article? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a clear WP:SNOW, which this isn't, after 7 days (or longer if necessary). And it's not done by majority vote (which is currently only 4:3 anyway), it's done by consensus, which requires the closing admin to evaluate people's comments and not just count votes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What Boing said. These AfD discussions are pretty common, and they are definitely discussions, not votes, though sometimes new editors are confused on the difference. There are hundreds of these discussions going on at any one time, and then administrators review the discussions and make a determination of consensus, based not on votes, but the strength of the policy arguments. For more info, see WP:AFD. --Elonka 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thank you both for clarifying. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete - The organization shut down is probably notable, but this looks and feels like an attack piece. I don't see compelling sourcing showing indicating that this is a notable individual outside of his previous employment. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find it hard to understand this article. It may be an attack piece. Where there is doubt, delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2011 (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.