Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Taking into account those arguments based on various policies and guidelines, the questions answered in this discussion are: do his patents show notability?; do his convictions show notability?; and does he have sufficient published coverage to show general notability? Consensus is that neither the convictions nor the patents are notable, so we must assess on the final question. On this question, overall the keep arguments fail to effectively refute the detailed and numerous arguments that the totality of published coverage does not lift the subject over the threshhold of general notability. Kevin (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Press

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Howard Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE Please!! - This article was written by the subject's son. I admit the COI. I started the page admittedly naively as a newbie) out of a heartfelt idea to discuss my father's positive contributions to humanity with his patent. But this has gotten WAY out of hand. Do you all really want my good intentions to leave me responsible for matricide?

It is my understanding from having lived through all of this mess, that this guy Etis was planted in the factory by those in Forest or other labs who wanted to steal my father's patent rights. It seems they did a really good job of it.

Regardless, WIKI policy on Biographies for living or in this case deceased (see C: below) persons, still call for certain protocols; to wit,

WIKI: Biographies of living persons (remember see below that this applies to deceased as well):

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects (NB -Mrs. Press) is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. So please review, if you are not already familiar with these policies, which from my perspective clearly qualify this article for deletion.

A: With respect to Criminals:
WIKI takes the view that MERELY that the act is High Profile does in and of itself doe NOT constitute "notability", read:<br? Perpetrators

A perpetrator of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a perpetrator. 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. Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true:

1. They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. An example is Phil Spector. (Note: Press was NOT, you all said so)
2. The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death. Examples of perpetrators meeting this standard are John Hinckley, Jr., Mehmet Ali Ağca, Yigal Amir, André Dallaire and Gavrilo Princip. (Note: Press was Clearly NOT, you never heard of him until I started this!)
3. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above. Examples of perpetrators meeting this standard are Jeffrey Dahmer and Beverley Allitt. (Note: Though we may have a hard time proving this, Press swore all his life which was otherwise devoted to humanity and his family, that ETIS was PLANTED in his place to do exactly this. And, thus may have been a victim of this horror. And, by the way. He was ONE year in Federal Prison, NOT three! So much for the Notorious Counterfeiter of all time crap.) So: even in arguendum he was really guilty of counterfeiting and supported it, this still is NOT enough to qualify for NOTABILITY under your own rules!!!!

B: Articles about people notable only for one event

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

NOTE: He lead an exemplary life in every other aspect of his life. WHAT ELSE was he notorious for? Thus the article fails THIS test as well.

C: Dealing with articles about the deceased

Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.


D: Presumption in favor of privacy
WIKI Policy states:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Thus, for all these reasons I ask that this article be finally DELETED. BTW: I sincerely apologize to all those who tried to improve the page, and did earnest research trying to help the case to keep a page re: the patent. This was my FIRST article an it was clearly a mistake for all the reasons you have all articulated.

Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion begins here

[edit]
  • Notice - to all editors. As I understand it, the nominator is, or claims to be, the son or relative of Howard Press. So while that's not an argument for delete or for keep, please do be extra careful to not make personal attacks in this debate. Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did and still do believe that Howard Press should have been considered notable on the grounds of his invention, and subsequent patent. The addition of the information on his trial and conviction is wholly immaterial to his creation, and his contribution to society, and is clearly a retaliatory action by those editors with whom there was a disagreement over notability. I therefore move that this article be deleted on the grounds stated by Drsjpdc. Waynethegoblin (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC) — Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per my reasons in the last AfD; nothing has changed since it was closed as "no consensus" yesterday. Dealing with the nominator's specific points: (1) WP:BLP doesn't apply as Howard Press isn't a living person. (A) The policies about notability of perpetrators cited refer to WP:BLP1E which doesn't apply as the man's criminal notability stretches across multiple events and prosecutions even before we take into account his claims as an inventor. They're also intended to address the question of whether it's appropriate for an article to be about the perpetrator, the victim, the crime itself or something different, rather than the question of whether Wikipedia should cover it at all. There's no suitable alternate article in this case. (B) As above, he's not notable only for one event. (C) The relevant policy statement for articles about the deceased is that they should be verifiable and well sourced; this article is (at least in relation to the potentially defamatory claims). (D) The need for privacy applies only to the biographies of living persons (Howard Press is deceased); the "victim" clause (those impacted by another's actions) isn't relevant here as the claims of duress made by the nominator within the article are unsourced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What exactly *IS* he notable for, and how has that notability been established? User:Drsjpdc failed to show that Howard Press was notable for his patent, and there are no references with significant coverage of Mr. Press in regards to the criminal prosecutions. DigitalC (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Waynethegoblin says, the subject appears to be notable, and indeed the article seems to be rather well-sourced. WP:BLP1E would only enter in if the person was only notable for one event, which doesn't seem to be the case here. (Although the section concerning the negative aspects could use an edit for tone). However, the trial and conviction do appear to be notable portions of his life, so I'm not sure it's worth deleting simply because someone thinks it casts a relation in poor light, so long as NOR/NPOV/V are all met. (And since this isn't really a BLP, I'm not sure privacy is a strong argument so long as things are neutral and sourced). --Bfigura (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The verifiable facts in this article do not give rise to notability. The crimes that the subject was convicted of do not meet the threshold of notability, and being issued a patent alone does not either. Were it accurate, the original claims might give rise to notability, but (despite numerous editors' good faith research efforts) they cannot be verified, and indeed appear to be false based on what sourced information has been identified. Bongomatic 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Figura, says these are "notable portions of his life". However the policy says that for criminals to be notable enough, they not only have to be MAJOR crimes, but that ALSO some other aspect of the life has to have ALSO been notable. Are you seriously equating the illicit manufacture of real pills with a trademark violation, to Jeffrey Dahmer? That's one of the examples?
You can't eat your cake and have it too. Earlier you all argued that the page should be deleted because the patent was not first, and because it proved nothing. I concede all that now. Thus, this FAILS to meet the criteria for Notability based on the WIKI policy for criminals alone.
And the policy for bios of deceased persons, stated above says that essentially the rules for living persons basically apply to the deceased. Bongo and I have rarely agreed./ I ask you to heed him now. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I didn't argue for delete, and neither did WaynetheGoblin, DGG, Bearian, or Rikatazz. Or for that matter, yourself, Drsjpdc. You made a convincing argument for Keep last time around; your difficulty is that you convinced people. There's some really excellent work occurring to improve the article and make it more NPOV, and I'd invite you to contribute to that effort and help present a balanced article about your father that will intrigue readers for years to come. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reply Drsjpdc, please don't put words (or analogies) into my mouth. If the article was about someone solely notable for their criminal acts, your comments would apply. However, what I (and a number of others) have asserted is that the subject is notable for multiple reasons, not just the criminal issues. Ie, we should be looking at WP:BLP1E, not solely focused on WP:N/CA (which is focused on the notability of criminal acts as stand-alone subjects). --Bfigura (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reply - Ditto. I argued for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The fact that the subject is notable, the article is properly sourced, and the main author admits his "mistake" in creating the article is all noted. The author has been well-acquainted with our WP:COI policy all along, and now that some unsavory details have been added to the article, as required by WP:NPOV, they have suddenly changed their mind. Let me remind the author and all readers about a fundamental part of the COI policy - The Law of Unintended Consequences - which reads:
Consequences of ignoring this guideline
Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.
In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.
You can't eat your cake and have it too. According to our policies, it is too late now for the author to do anything, especially because it is the fault of NPOV that the unsavory details have been added. Their pleadings actually violate the principles written above. They knew about this warning and chose to ignore it. Too bad. One could say that this is the just rewards of attempting to misuse Wikipedia for promotion. We don't write hagiographies here. This is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service where personal articles can be written and displayed. To seek to misuse Wikipedia to write a hagiography, and then seek to misuse the AfD process to undo the consequences of ignoring policies just won't do. One cannot rejoice when a policy-violating article somehow makes it through, but then regret when it gets revised into an article that abides by our NPOV policy. This AfD strikes right at the heart of our most sacred policy, NPOV. The proper response to all such AfDs is to keep it and make it even better. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special pleadings and personal attacks that aren't appropriate in an AfD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Thats all very cute. But how does one prove a negative. I was told over and over that he only plead guilty because the Prosecutors promised him a suspended sentence if he did. So he went across the street to he lawyer and basically fired him and came back to the Judge and accepted the guilty plea. Beause the whole thing was draining the family's resources. he did this for all of us. When they turned on him and asked for prison anyway, he tried to revoke the plea, but the Judge refused to allow it. Never heard of that kind of thing happening before? I rather doubt there is any documentation to show that the Federal prosecutors pulled this kind of dirty trick. Did you read the Appeal case you posted? It essentially tell that same story. It just leaves out the WHY would ha have accepted a plea, and the tried to revoke it?? Are we the National Enquirer?

More... did Bull Rangifer do some of the research to dredge up the dirt? If so then his opinion would be a COI too. Just asking. Д-рСДжП,ДС 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made only one edit, the addition of a category, so retract your fangs. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fangs retracted. I was just asking, perhaps badly, if those who dug up the mud, should have the same voice now that their work is threatened? Wiki policy make it clear that this is not supposed to be the National Enquirer. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely they should; the same logic would have barred you from participating in the last AfD. Everyone gets a say, and it's worth noting that the "mud" was dug up specifically to support your claims that Howard Press was notable. As I've said before, if you feel that the criminal prosecutions are not an accurate reflection of his life as a whole, you are more than welcome to add additional (appropriately sourced) material to the article to balance them out. (I'm not saying this by way of further argument over this article but in an attempt to help you understand and exercise your options at this stage.)- DustFormsWords (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was NOT aware of the COI policy when I started this article. As I said, it was my first (or nearly so). I became aware of it only later when another article was removed for COI issues. So, that statement is incorrect. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 05:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is very correct. On Aug. 19, the day you started the article, you were alerted to it on the talk page. You should have listened. Your COI has been discussed by yourself and others many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.: I admit that I advocated too strongly for the preservation of an article on my dad. He was a good man and didn't deserve this.
2.: However, I also concede that at about the end of the discussion in AfD 2, (when It was too late to concede). I read the research that found a couple of other patents which PRE-Dated his (I'm sure he never knew about them), not Consolazio's , but another WAS found, which clearly DID use a cellulose base to deliver medication over time, and thus I have to concede that the Press patent was not the first to have this idea. By the time I saw that, the article had taken a dark turn.
3.:In any event, since the patent was not the first, one of you proved that this means that Bongo was right all along about the notability issue; and since the "crime" is a 40+yr old trademark infringement case, in which no one was ever alleged to have been injured, it hardly rises to "notability" under WIKI rules (above) that talk about "major crimes" like Dahmer; the analogy is even ridiculous, and we don't stick to the rules, would lower the credibility of WIKI. If one actually reads what I posted at the start of this. I certainly have received a WIKI education here.
Can we spell Schädenfreud? Д-рСДжП,ДС 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For Now. A number of editors have enhanced the article very recently, adding verifiable facts and improving its neutrality. I repeat what was said in the previous AfD: the article is in a great state of flux, and every day new documented facts about Howard Press's life are coming to light. The latest request to delete this article was a knee-jerk reaction right in the middle of some of the best research that had been done on the subject. Certainly we should give the editors the benefit of the doubt to continue their research and improve the notability of the subject. The decision to delete this article should be a slow process, and should be postponed for several months.
  • Second Point: Drsjpdc cannot give an unbiased account of whether his father's crimes were minor or major, notable or not, so his opinions must be discarded. Counterfeiting drugs in the U.S. is a serious felony--thousands of people could get sick or die--but also a crime that is quite rare and unique. Most felonies are not notable as they are run-of-the-mill local offenses, but in this case presumably General Pharmacal would have needed great sophistication (tablet presses, packaging, labeling, surreptitious dealings, interstate transportation, conspiracy) to undertake this operation. Local, state, and federal agents had to combine to shut it down.
  • Drsjpdc's claim that somehow Press, president of General Pharmacal, was somehow oblivious or uninvolved in the counterfeiting at his own company (over the course of a year) is absolutely preposterous. A reading of the indictment and complaints proves the opposite.
  • Drsjpdc notes that his father's offenses resulted in only one year in Federal prison, and that this should minimize its severity. Yet Liptower was correct in stating that Press was "sentenced to three years"; presumably Press got off on good behavior. Most relevantly, the judge in the case warned the conspirators never to set foot again in the pharmaceutical industry, for their next sentence would be a "life sentence." Evidently the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District thought the crimes were notable.
  • Besides the notoriety of the crimes themselves, Howard Press himself may be notorious as a repeat offender. Drsjpdc edited what Liptower had posted in the article, changing "Press faced new felony charges yet again several years later for an even larger offense" to "Press faced new felony charges several years later for mulitple [sic] issues related to the original charges." This is disputable. The second indictments, which came down from a New Jersey grand jury on October 27, 1965, appear to be quite distinct from the first (General Pharmacal 1960) case, with a completely different set of conspirators, and a different set of charges. The first case involved interstate shipments of counterfeit nationally trademarked drugs; the second, 18 counts of distributing counterfeit Dexedrine and Dexamyl Spansules, fraud, and conspiracy. In the first case, agents had been probing General Pharmacal from 1959 to 1960; in the second, federal agents made a series of undercover purchases beginning in August 1964. Drsjpdc wants us to believe these were one in the same. In reality, there were at least two separate crimes; what happened was that the first indictments were dismissed in favor of a single, consolidated indictment. Furthermore, evidence is now surfacing that Press defrauded Lowey back in 1951, and Key Corporation in or around 1954, etc. If so, this is not one isolated incident but indeed a case of a serious perpetrator who was on the FDA's watch list for many years.
  • Third Point: The fact that the crimes took place in the past, or are mostly unknown to our generation, is irrelevant. If Wikipedia editors unearth truths that contribute to our understanding and knowledge of a topic, then it should not matter if the events took place 5, 50, or 500 years ago.
  • Lastly, I will repeat for the nth time that Drsjpdc must not make inflammatory, unsubstantiated accusations either here in the AfD, his article, the talk page, or anywhere else. He is advised to retract his statement at the top of this AfD that Forest Laboratories, a publicly traded company, is somehow responsible for crimes for which his father was indicted. If on the other hand, Drsjpdc is so certain that this is the case, and can supply documented proof, then I welcome him to retract his latest request for deletion and enter such factual evidence in the body of the article.--Rikatazz (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE DELETE DELETE: What a mess. Drsjpdc wrongfully creates a glowing article about his dad, and labours away on it. Bongomatic rightly sniffs out the original research bonanza (citing a page of the 1930 US Census book listing dad's birth, come on!), and proposes the 2nd AfD. In the meantime (Oct 27 GMT time), a single purpose account, Liptower comes through and rifles[1] the article with this criminal stuff written as negatively as possible, including citations to court documents. Liptower, most likely, has some connection to Hans Lowey or someone else who was adverse to Press. E.g., the obscure 1962 book cited for the "notorious" quote does not mention Press by name, nor do the 1960 articles in Chemical Week or Newsweek. The short 8/6/60 NY Times article mentions Press as one of three arrested. The 1961 NY Times article is 121 words and lists press as one of six people. (I have access and can send the short articles to anyone if they want to see them.) All subsequent court proceedings, including the 1965 indictment, are cites to court documents without evidence the proceedings received any news coverage, and there is no basis for me to conclude its not all just run of the mill criminal allegations and civil litigation of no interest to anyone else except the litigants. "Howard A. Press" gets 19 hits on google, a few of which are hits to the actual reported cases, but none of which are coverage in sources reliable or otherwise. Searching for "Howard Press" without the initial is problematic because of hits to printing companies, but "Howard Press" and "General Pharmacal" gets 0 hits outside wiki mirrors.
So, in my opinion, the notability of this WHOLE article rests on two brief press mentions in the NY Times in 1960-61 about some criminal allegations completely unrelated to the mass of patent stuff otherwise covered. The 2nd AFD closed as no consensus, and some infrequent contributors were among the keeps. Among regular contributors (and I'm not saying infrequent contributors deserve no weight, but this is clearly a screwy case), DGG was a weak keep, and DustFromWords was a keep contingent on "if the claims made in the article lead section are backed up by sources." I cannot deny I feel for Drsjpdc's personal appeal for deletion, but undoing this one is right both on policy and equity. P.S. I also ask possible SPA Rikatazz to disclose any connection to this mess - you have copies of 1960s indictments? --Milowent (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To establish that Press wasn't a one-offense criminal (and to counter your view that Liptower based his whole section on just two short NY Times articles), I have added new citations to FDA Papers and FDA Report on Enforcement and Compliance that report new counterfeiting in 1962-64; see the talk section as well. As I said, the article is in flux and new factual references are being added, so perhaps postpone this deletion decision until editors can finish. You might consider searching for "Howard Press" or "Howard A. Press" on google/books too.--Rikatazz (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rikatazz, Errr? did you miss my question to you? I also ask possible SPA Rikatazz to disclose any connection to this mess - you have copies of 1960s indictments? Cause if you didn't miss it, its extremely telling. Its obvious you care strongly for this article for some reason. In any event, these two FDA docs don't show notability, as the FDA has reporting requirements that require the compilation of this type of stuff, and we don't have articles on every FDA-related criminal matter or counterfeit drug maker. If you got newspaper reports covering these events beyond the two NY times snips, we should look at them. Of course Liptower did not base his additions on the two small NY Times articles, he has his own sources. I went ahead and checked "Howard A. Press" on google books and get 15 hits -- there's nothing beyond that 1967 FDA Papers citation you found; no new sources found via "Howard Press" and drugs either.--Milowent (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something, the criminal claims are also sourced to the relevant trial transcript, which anyone with access to the relevant legal libraries can read. There is absolutely no question that the man was arrested and convicted in the 1960s in relation to these offences - the son admits it - so why are we questioning the sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dust, generally trial transcripts are not available in legal libraries. There may be for some cases (like O.J.), but not usually. I highly doubt this one is, but Rikatazz could chime in and tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not questioning that trial transcripts or court documents are relevant for verifying facts, but they doesn't show notability. Note, by the way, that the article doesn't say he was convicted for the 1961 indictments, just that he was indicted. The proceedings later in the 60s show the guy pled guilty under the 1965 indictment, and later tried to withdraw his plea, which was denied. Looks like a dispute with his attorney to some extent. I don't see how these crimes confer notability on Mr. Press.--Milowent (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete:Fails WP:N; however I see no reason why the article shouldn't be userfied to one of the account of one of the passionate editors arguing for keep. Clearly, a lot time went into the article so perhaps one day notability will be satisfied, perhaps his son will write a book. Mathieas (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Disambiguation): After Dr Press wrote his last appeal, which I see a few courageous souls have called for what it was, I too read the “pre-existing” patents, and now also agree that there was at least one that looks an awful lot like his father’s. Thus, I have to concede, like the doc that the original page also did not qualfy under WIKI rules for notability. I hope this ends the twisting of my previous statement, and makes it clear that I too voted for DELETE Waynethegoblin (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Removed second !vote from same user. Bongomatic 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically per my reasoning in the previous AfD. The sources added near the end of that discussion and since should be fine, but I am not seeing the sort of in depth coverage of the person or the series of events that would make this a notable topic. A merge to General Pharmacal might be viable, but I am not at the moment convinced. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Milowent has been to my talk page politely requesting some further discussion, and I've there laid out a more extensive dissection of my reasons the article should be kept. They're a bit long and they're really only a restatement of what I've said in this and the last debate, but if anyone wants to read them you can find them here. Please leave replies on the AfD debate, not my talk page, to avoid splitting the discussion.- DustFormsWords (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with what you stated on his talk page resolves around the first paragraph, particularly point 3. It states "If the inventor of time release medication were to be Press, he would therefore be notable.". I agree with this, but we have no reliable secondary sources that states that he was the inventor of time release medication. You then say "All of the above is, as I understand it, not in issue and backed up by reliable sources." [sic]. But this isn't the truth - it isn't backed up by reliable sources. DigitalC (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

BTW: I can swear and attest that "Waynethegoblin" and I are not the same person. I have ONE account only. Also, I am 62 years old, and this sounds like a name that a much younger person would use. And, after reading what sure looks like long saved paperwork, I too would like an explanation of the possible COI of one of the "pro" voters. Д-рСДжП,ДС 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would like to repeat that I have learned a lot since I made this mess. I sincerely apologize to all those who put effort into this, and thank all those who saw through the disaster. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The crime and trial received very little attention, and the patent and dispute received practically none. I don't buy into the WP:BLP claims because this isn't a biography of a living person. But the lack of notability lets me lean toward delete. To give full disclosure, Drsjpdc did leave me a message on my talk page asking for advice on how to deal with the "mess" this article became, but he did not ask that I participate in the AfD. I decided to do so on my own, for my own reasons, because I don't feel the article belongs in the encyclopedia by our usual standards for biographies. -- Atama頭 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It takes time to unearth the facts. We shouldn't race to delete an article because AfD voters do a 10-second google search for the subject and come up with few hits. I just added information to the talk page that suggests that indeed there was widespread publicity about the 1960 crime, and that, contrary to Milowent's assertion, Press was clearly mentioned in the Chemical Week article. Just because you don't have instant online access to everything doesn't make the topic less truthful or real. Question: just how long does this AfD process last?--Rikatazz (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD process generally takes 7 days. DigitalC (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Rikatazz: "I also ask possible SPA Rikatazz to disclose any connection to this mess - you have copies of 1960s indictments? And the merits, OK, I see the quote you put on the talk page in chemical week, press' name is listed (the google search shows no hits on that article, whether you can read the article or not, it says 0 hits are contained in the article, that was the source of my prior assertion). I have done far more than a "10-second google search", including accessing the NYTimes pay and highbeam article library pay archives. Also, the article you quoted says "widespread publicity" is to still to come, but I don't see that it happened. Its a crime that had no impact beyond basic reporting, and those generally are not notable. BTW, since you seem to know a lot about this stuff, whatever happened to the 1961 indictment? The article doesn't say. And whatever happened to Lowey's SEC's investigations, that popped up in my searches as well?--Milowent (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could someone do the favour of going through the 36 sources currently in the article, and making a list of secondary sources that actually mention Mr. Press? Such a list could be located on the dicussion tab of the AfD, or on the article's talk page. DigitalC (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have since reviewed the references, and found that there were only 3 secondary sources that mention Mr. Press. 1) Joseph O. Haff, "Bogus Pills Laid to 3 in Hoboken," The New York Times, August 6, 1960 2)"Six Drug Men Indicted, Charged with Counterfeiting Trademarks on Pills," The New York Times, March 29, 1961 3)Chemical Week, Volume 87, Chemical Markets Inc: 1960, pp. 18, 45.
  • Delete: I stand by my !vote from the 2nd nomination, in that this article still fails WP:N. The article is titled "Howard Press". However, from my review of the references, there are no independent secondary sources that give Mr. Press significant coverage. I encourage anyone who has voted keep to show me how the references have established notability. DigitalC (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    I have refrained from doing any more editing of this enquirer article, but I ask my colleagues to look at the following:

1.- there is NO reference to support the change that was made to now say that Press was "in business with Lowey" in Bonded laboratories, is or ever was true. As I have stated for disclosure purposes, I lived through the whole nightmare, and I never heard my dad say ANYTHING about having worked for Bonded laboratories. I did know that he knew Lowey and he blamed him his whole life for having stolen his invention; and, 2.- he then says that "Lowey signed a licensing agreement with Key Corporation"; there is no proof that it was Lowey who signed anything. Since he seems to have access to Lowey's or Forest's long archived papers; where is the contract? no reference? retract the statement; and, 3.- he then claims that Lowey (changed from Press) signed a non available "licensing agreement". NB: the two references listed #s 7,&8 have nothing to do with a licensing agreement; 7 is another reference in the 1959 PDR, and 8, is a BMJ article having nothing to do with any relationship between Press and Lowey and nothng to do with a contract; and, 4.- the entire statement:

- agents began covertly investigating General Pharmacal's Hoboken office in connection with a bootleg drug operation that they believed Press to be running. Agents determined that the company was manufacturing illicit tablets and pills bearing the trademarked names of nationally recognized drug companies, and that the misbranded drugs were counterfeits of genuine products

is unsupported by ANY reference. Was the editor an FDA agent? From whence did he manufacture this whole statement?; and, 5.- reference 14, also only shows that a study of Nitroglyn was done, and published by the Heart Association. What has it to do with the controversy?; and, 6.- the entire statement:

Press and five others began shipping imitation Dexedrine and Dexamyl Spansules in late 1962. Starting in August 1964, FDA agents made a series of seven undercover purchases of these illicit drugs, and by October 1964 had found more than a million counterfeit capsules and tablets. On October 27, 1965, Press was indicted under an 18-count charge including fraud, violation of the criminal provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and a conspiracy in violation of that Act.

is unsupported by any of the references. It sure looks like someone who wrote that, has an ax to grind here. Where is the documentation for this? The couple of citations are listings of documents apparently not available to us today. Where did the editor find them, and considering the claims made, we should either see them or the claim should be retracted.

Д-рСДжП,ДС 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References which actually mention Press are: 1,
3 (census)
5 is a broken link
9,10,11,27,28, 29 & 30, 32, 33, 34, & 35 ??? we can't examine: these a re apparently ONLY available to the editor with the ax, and the 40 year old archive of this stuff
24, 25 and 26 mention ONLY the corporation
31 mentions the sentence, but also list others I never heard of.
Д-рСДжП,ДС 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, BTW, please notice that despite that Forest Laboratories (Which I did not know until now still existed), has its own page on WIKI, (and due to a now understood COI on my part) I didn't add the references and controversy that could possibly hurt them by adding references showing that thei founding was grounded in some shady dealings with re: this angel Lowey (their Chairman-of-the-Board) having been cited by the SEC for Securities fraud, etc (See reference #6). And check out #5, which shows that the 1960' incarnation of Forest was sued by others for other kinds of fraud as well.
All is not what the criminal record seems to show. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed what was reference 8 in the article because it had nothing to do with the proposition cited, so the numbers above will be off. If trying to compare to numbers above, check prior revisions to match up, as I'm am looking through these cites (many of which are to bare URLs) and may have to edit some more.--Milowent (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I don't believe that the "bust" or counterfeit operation would meet the inclusion critera of a stand alone article (based on WP:NOTNEWS), there certainly shouldn't be an article about one of the people involved with it. Aside from that there is the process patent, and in my eyes there is nothing to establish notability there.--kelapstick (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I might not be on top of the debate; is there any genuine dispute that Press was President of General Pharmacal during the relevant period and had partial or full control over its operations? That's backed by the court transcripts for the convictions, surely? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are no court transcripts of any convictions, because he was never convicted of anything. I've fixed those assertions in the article. For the 1961 indictment (the one covered by the 121-word NY Times article), there is no information about what happened to that, which makes me suspect it was dropped, though we have no idea either way. The 1965 indictment -- which was never covered by any news coverage anyone can find -- ended when Press pled guilty to one of 6 counts (presumably the other 5 counts were then dropped, but again, we don't know). Press' guilty plea came during a short period of time when he didn't have an attorney, and he was not allowed to withdraw the guilty plea. I learned this stuff by reading the court opinions, which don't demonstrate any notability to this matter. / All that aside, the 1960 NY Times blurb says the 37 year old Press was the President of General Pharmacal at the time of the raid. There is no press coverage I have seen explaining what Press' role was, or anyone else's role, and without an actual trial nothing ever HAD to be proven in court.--Milowent (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting! Thanks Milowent! I'm not sure a conviction is necessary to found notability - being the controlling mind of a company alleged to have been America's largest counterfeit drug producer would in my view be enough - but you're right that a source will be. (None of the below addresses that issue, it's just for use in improving the article and finding sources.) This document indicates that prosecution was still ongoing in June 1962 (it's an appeal by only one of the defendants so doesn't mention Press). And while I'm citing sources, on an unrelated matter, this source provides support for General Pharmacal manufacturing Obes-Ebb tablets in 1959, by way of a destruction of some defective units. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even think 10 convictions of a crime would confer notability, unless they "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Being charged with a crime, or being a hoax floating balloon, can confer notability if it receives significant coverage. Here, even Press' guilty plea received no press of which we are aware. We also have no idea what Press' role was - I could argue he knew nothing substantive, and there is no source either way. I have read the June 1962 case opinion, and you cannot tell if anything was pending against Press at that point.--Milowent (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't gone through the sources in detail, but judging from the discussion above, this looks like a case of WP:SYN and WP:OR: an article created through stitching together mentions in primary sources rather than reporting from secondary sources. There doesn't seem to be the required level of coverage in independent reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Robofish (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I said weak keep last time, to a more confused version of the article. The present version is stronger, and coherent, and better sourced. It's absurd to say he was not convicted, because he pled guilty and was sentenced to prison. If a standard textbook cites the criminal scheme as a notorious example, he';s notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG - Please look at the sources, or instead to DigitalC's comment about them above. The reason they look better is because bare URLS have been changed to look like actual cites, but the sources are no better quality. There is no coverage in reliable sources of the criminal conviction/guilty plea. The court cases don't say he was convicted, because he pled guilty, though i realize news articles can be loose with these terms. As law.com defines it, a conviction is "n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime." And that never happened. Also, the book hardly looks like a standard textbook, and does not even mention Press. Also, regarding the original reason this article was created (Press's son wanting to tell the world it was really HIS dad who created time-release medication, not Lowey), there is no coverage in any reliable sources about Press' alleged contributions to time release medication.--Milowent (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the law.com definition is a little misleading. On the basis of a plea of guilty, the court (usually) finds that the defendant is guilty. (It can refuse to make that finding despite the plea in some circustances, such as where the defendant is found not fit to plead, or where the court believes that the plea is not an honest plea (eg the defendant is covering for the real criminal)). Following a finding of guilt, a conviction almost inevitably follows during the sentencing process (although again a person can be found guilty without conviction, typically when the charge is technically made out but so inconsequential as to deserve not even the punishment of conviction). So yes, even on a plea of guilty we'd expect to find record of conviction. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In answer to Dustforms comment and reference; You are grapsing at straws to support the unsupportable! Obese-ebb was General Pharmacal's OWN brand, generally sold to local bariatricians (weight-loss) doctors who gave them out like water. That was the 60's. I actualyl recall that. Dad was really annoyed that they thought this batch failed purity tests. He hired a chemist-specialist just to make sure that didn;t happen again. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 03:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Drsjdpc, I'm no longer trying to actively argue this; there's some discussion going on that Milowent's findings re sources for the conviction do undermine the notability argument, which I'm inclined to agree with. So really right now I'm just only getting involved to correct some misapprehensions about what conclusions can and cannot be validly drawn from the remaining sources on the criminal matters. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a further waste of time to me.
Isn't it clear that a consensus has been reached this is at least 2+ to one in favor of Delete. How much longer does this torture continue unnecessarily? - Д-рСДжП,ДС 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days seems like a long time in this type of situation, especially since there is no clear consensus. The better the article gets, the better case for keeping it. One cannot deny that being the president of a company that was the major supplier of counterfeit drugs in the USA is NOT a small matter. That's very significant and notable, and that a repetition of a crime he had already confessed to is very typical. A pattern has been established. That he later seems to have been a good father and decent citizen is nice to know. That doesn't change history. You have the makings of a new biography here, where you can tell your version of the story, including the details of what actually happened, why he continued in crime, how the family reacted to it, what he told his family, and what he didn't tell them: "Betrayal - The Inside Story on Howard Press. The Family's Perspective". -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't write original research biographies on wikipedia-your comment is incredible support for deletion. And as this is mostly original research in here, its not surprising that you have the facts wrong -- he was not convicted more than once. He was the president, but there is no coverage whatsoever regarding what his role was in the counterfeiting, the meager amount written about it never mentioned Press except for the fact that he was arrested in 1960 and indicted in 1961--for charges that apparently never resulted in a conviction. we don't judge notability solely because someone "sounds important" -- there should be significant coverage in independent sources showing notability.--Milowent (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a family member who is in denial? It sure sounds like it after the way you are twisting this. Note that I didn't use the word "convicted" in my comment. I noted that he was involved in two separate cases of crime, and he spent time in jail for one of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. No, to be clear, I knew nothing about any of these people until I stumbled upon this article on AfD patrol. I will admit, however, that this AfD is getting under my skin a bit so I almost anticipated someone would ask that! I don't think I truly appreciated the importance of Wikipedia:No original research before this one. I highly suspect that Rikatazz, the primary champion of keeping at this point, is very close to the litigation because he apparently has unpublished court materials from the 1960s and 1970s. He also added a number of the sources, aside from some added by SPA Liptower, who first brought up the criminal allegations. I've asked 3 times above what Rikatazz's connection is, but he has not chosen to respond at this point.--Milowent (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Actually for accuracy sake, it was the corporation which was found to have been involved in this, and the President was arrested exactly because he ran the company. That was what he told us, and this seems to be supported by the dearth of any evidence that he knew what was going on Nowhere has anyone shown that Press knew that all this was going on, or actively participated in it. Also the laundry list of "co-conspirators" that no one in the family ever heard of before, and he told us that too. Nowhere has anywhere shown that he was arrested with counterfeit pills in his personal possession. NOWHERE. All that, frankly supports his story. People are arrested all the time for things they do not personally commit. I made an error, caused by not yet knowing the rules here, but certain editors who should are ignoring them, and one had to wonder why? I inadvertently, out of dedication to a great father's memory, created this huge mess. I have apologized to my WIKI colleagues already several times. When does this end? -Д-рСДжП,ДС 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that СДжП,ДС. An AfD normally runs for seven days. But you are making an important point -- there is absolutely no evidence that Press was personally involved in the "ring." He may well have been, he may not have been, but we simply don't know. The circumstances of his guilty plea on one of the 6 counts (based on reading the court opinions) are very screwy -- my reading is that he ran out of money to pay his attorneys and freaked out after one another defendant went to trial and was found guilty--but even this is highly speculative and not covered by any sources. We have no idea what that other defendant did, but its quite possible it made Press think (when he had no counsel) it didn't make a difference what he actually did, and that the guilty plea he was offered was his only option. Am I the only one who thinks of Richard Jewell (not strictly analogous though) --Milowent (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right! If one actually read all of what I wrote,(and YOU obviously did) I said before that dad (he was pretty forthcoming for a guilty guy) told us that he was offered a plea with suspended sentence in exchange for a guilty pleading. As soon as he fired the lawyer (Fischbein), the prosecutors conveniently forgot about their promises and he went to jail. If we re-read that screwy appellate cite; that's why he tried to take back the plea!!! The Judge and the prosecutors had a "gotcha" moment. (Kind of like this article) (law of unintended consequences; right) This all makes sense now. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References Provided. At the request of Milowent and other editors, I have posted two items on my talk page: the 1965 FDA Report on Enforcement and Compliance and the November 13, 1973 summary judgment in the case Press v. Forest Laboratories, et. al. Milowent and other editors: please re-write changes you may have made to the main article, after you have seen these items. Let me know if there are other items you need.--Rikatazz (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So one again, if one actually reads all that old garbage, Press filed his suit more than six years after the fact, and this was one of the major reasons cited by the court for dismissing the case. The whole suit looks like he was pissed off at the theft of his patent, anddecided to use the courts to tie up Forest over this, frankly inappropriately. I would have advised against doing that, had I been a lawyer, or even consulted.
As to the convictions; here again there is no wording which directly ties Press to holding the contraband. It sort of hints at that, re the airport matter, but it never says that. It says that they found the goods at the home of one of those names I intriguingly never, ever heard before. Also, frankly, in my estimation this supports my dad's story, in that there were people he really didn't even KNOW, doing this stuff BEHIND his back; allowed into his plant by Etis, and he just got nailed for it's being his place. Nothing here to controvert that story at all! - Д-рСДжП,ДС 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, BTW; I TOO would like to know from Rikatazz, where he is getting this stuff? There HAS to be a COI connection with Lowey or Forest; SOMEONE who would have carried a grudge all these years to save that trash. - Д-рСДжП,ДС 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Rikatazz is providing V & RS, and is not disruptive, (s)he is under no obligation to out themself. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs to out themselves, as (edited to add): in my opinion its already obvious to me that Rikatazz is related to someone who was adverse to Press. That's the only way he would have these unpublished court materials, so its a clear conflict of interest which editors should simply be aware of.--Milowent (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and ask that you please strikeout your comment. I believe that the documents were available through LEXIS.com, and as such there is no clear COI. Further, a COI is not an issue unless the editor is failing to abide by WP:NPOV when editing. DigitalC (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalC is quite right. It's also rather ironic that Milowent supports the author of this article when the author regrets that his non-NPOV version gets fixed to a more NPOV version, and then Milowent seeks to attack an anonymous editor who actually follows NPOV by including sourced material that improves the article. COI's LUC is directed at the author's attempts to own a non-NPOV version of the article, and Milowent's attempts to support him. Such attempts should be rebuffed and the article improved with more good sources. It is Press that has the COI problem because he used his COI to write a hagiography about his father, and knowingly left out negative details he knew about, while Rikatazz has no problem because (s)he isn't violating policy, but is actually bringing more balance to the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who I am attacking now? I think Rika and I get along fine, but I'm not blind either. I edited the comment above slightly. It does appear that 1973 unpublished summary judgment opinion (which I haven't analysed yet, but will) is available via lexis, though it was never cited as such (with the lexis cite) before.--Milowent (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. (The rationale is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (2nd nomination) since it is still applicable.) 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 Wikipedia:Synthesis and Wikipedia: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) 06:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • DELETE: Stephen, you may find it hard to believe that I, LIPTOWER, agree with you that the article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. The whole thing is a tragedy of contributors with feelings vs. people who want to stick only to hard facts. Maybe I should not have opened the can of worms but by the same reckoning maybe you Stephen should have been more polite yourself. I believe you have learned an important life lesson. At the same time, you are learning a few things about your dad. You were either too young to understand, or your dad never told you what happened, or whatever. This will be my last entry in Wikipedia, so there is no need to respond, I won’t reply anyway. I am going to tell you the whole story, and I am not going to back up with pointless citations and references. Whether you choose to believe it or not is of no concern. Just read it. Then re-read it, over and over, until it sinks in. Think about it. This is what happened.
Long narrative constituting original research, but demonstrating that the original research in the article is but one interpretation of the primary sources referenced
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Your dad was a promising young chemist, well educated, good looking, and ambitious. Hans Lowey, who ran Bonded Labs, admired Howie, hiring him around 1950. At the time, Bonded had two business lines, a pharmaceutical business and a vitamin operation. Howie was brought on to handle the vitamin line so Hans could focus on what turned out to be the more lucrative tablet business. One of Hans’s customers was his good friend Howard W. Stern at Key Corporation. Previously, Hans had developed a method (he actually developed dozens of methods and throughout his life had more patents than anyone) of coating tablets that improved on the old enteric, delayed-release technology. He signed a licensing agreement with Key in early 1950. Much work had to be done, including trials and studies, and things were put on hold for some time by the Korean War, when the firm was called upon by the U.S. government to developed long-acting salt tablets for soldiers. Howie and Hans collaborated on this and probably many other beneficial products in the early 1950s. However, Howie was not satisfied with his role in the firm and wanted more.
One day in 1951, Hans came into the office very early in the morning and caught Howie in his office with a large sheet of paper, trying to copy Hans’s signature. When questioned by Hans, your dad had no answer. Hans fired him on the spot.
The formulation for Key’s sustained action products were known to no one but Hans—not even Stern knew it, and not Howie—and the methodology was kept in a sealed envelope, to be opened only if Hans were to die or if he failed to fulfill his end of the agreement. It is clear that the formulation as described in your dad’s U.S. patent was not the one used in Nitroglyn, but rather Hans’s method. I will explain this shortly. During 1952 and early 1953, Hans and Stern ran clinical trials of the sustained action drugs and commissioned independent research studies. Your dad obviously got word that sustained release products were coming out, and around June 1953 he determined to get a piece of the action and file a U.S. patent bearing his name. Hans quickly sued and said that such work was done jointly while your dad was an employee at Bonded. The two agreed on a joint ownership of that patent and that Hans would pay royalties to Howie for any products developed using that method. Problem was, no such products were (or ever were) manufactured with the Press patent. Nitroglyn and the other Key launches used the Lowey method, which we are certain about because the marketing materials from Key speak about therapeutic constant levels of pH as the medicine is exposed to enormous peaks and valleys of acidity and alkalinity in the stomach and small intestine. This was the essence of Hans’s approach—he solved the problem of uniform pH—and nothing in your dad’s patent speaks about this. Hans paid some token sums to Howie over time, and Howie didn’t complain—at least not until 1956, when he sued for an accounting. If Howie was so certain that he was being defrauded, then why did he wait for three years before suing? Here’s why:
A year or so after the launch of Nitroglyn, Howie called Stern secretly and offered to manufacture sustained action Nitroglyn for him at a price below what Bonded was offering. Stern foolishly agreed. Trouble was, Howie believed all along the formulation in his patent was the one used in the Key products, and that it worked. It did not. Howie and his company thus produced defective tablets for Key. Stern contacted Hans and told him the merchandise was substandard. Key stopped paying royalties to Bonded and the FDA was brought in. However, when it was determined that Key’s drugs were not up to specification, but Bonded’s were, Stern was caught in a lie by his friend Hans. Stern broke down and admitted his mistake in judgment to Hans. Key immediately paid all the monies due to Bonded and Stern swore never to work with your dad again. Stern was so devastated by this debacle that, irony of ironies, he died of a heart attack a few days later.
This is the genesis of your dad’s fall into wrongdoing. The General Pharmacal scare of the 1960s may not be remembered by this generation, but it was in the papers, at least in New Jersey. Some readers here are old enough to remember the Tylenol scare of 1982. Pharmacal was similar, but in miniature. Just what was Howie doing, president of a shady operation for years, run in a secret warehouse, amid dingy conditions? I find it hard to swallow that he was "asleep at the switch" for a whole year 1959-1960. General Pharmacal wasn’t a massive operation—it had a dozen or fewer employees, and everyone knew everyone else for years. And why, after the police closed down the company permanently, didn’t Howie learn his lesson? He got right back into counterfeiting again in 1962 with a new bunch of shady characters, and was convicted and sentenced for a new felony. You once wrote that Howie has never been compensated for his "contribution to humanity." A tragedy!
Stephen, you and your family suffered through years because your father couldn’t straighten himself out. He lashed out at Hans, Bonded, Forest, and others around him, all to no avail. He held life-long grudge against Hans which you inherited, wrongly. You are an esteemed doctor of Chiropractic, not a vindictive man. Why did you write this article in the first place, withholding your dad’s felony charges and jail time? Was Wikipedia a means for you to be heard, a pulpit for you to continue this "vendetta," as the judge called it, and re-open old wounds from 36 years ago?
Howard Press absolutely does not deserve an article. Notable or not, the story is too troubled. Just look at it: a biography section, light fluff about PROW, then a Nitroglyn section, then the crimes and suits. The whole section on Nitroglyn falls apart because the subject did not have anything to do with it, and it reads more like an article on Hans than Howie. The section on the crimes is going to be edited and re-edited hundreds of time, without any purpose. Administrators: please DELETE this article, as per Stephen’s wishes. Editors, you can serve the Wikipedia community better in many other ways, for instance by improving the article on time-release medication. There you can stick to facts and avoid feelings. If this article is not deleted, then some other editor will propose another AfD, and so on, a waste of everyone’s time. Good riddance.--Liptower (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Liptower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Annotation for aid of the drama-interested reader: Liptower is the editor who came thru about 4 days ago and added the criminal charge sections to the article.--Milowent (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a comment reflecting the significant changes to the article.
  • The article now has numerous references.
  • The references that are used to back all significant claims in the article are primary sources.
  • The interpretation of those claims is anything but uncontroversial.
  • The entire article remains original research (though probably better original research than it was at the time of the nomination).
  • There remains no legitimate claim to notability for the subject of the article (even in the original research).
Bongomatic 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Seb az86556, it appears that you are not familiar with the procedural history. Here:
  • between the second nomination and this one, the article was dramatically rewritten; and
  • the main proponent of "keep" in the second round changed his opinion.
The procedural issues, where entrenched views hope to appeal to a broader constituency or hope that previous participants don't chime in again, are totally inapplicable. Bongomatic 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The reasoning is quite....reasonable! It should be an AFD policy that there must go a certain amount of time between AFDs. I'd say two weeks at the minimum. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a) That isn't policy, and changes to policy should be addressed elsewhere.
(b) Such a policy, should it be implemented, should and would (in order to gain consensus) provide for carve-outs for new information, material changes to the article, or changes to the views of significant contributers to the previous AfD discussion. Bongomatic 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the potential, the reality seems to be that abuse of AfD relistings is actually fairly minimal, and while I've disagreed with the nominator on the merits of this matter both the circumstances and the resulting discussion have totally justified the process of bringing it back so quickly. Besides which, heated AfD discussions almost always result in the quality of the subject article being improved, so Wikipedia benefits even in the case of repeated Keep results. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... in other words, should this AfD turn out to be "Keep" or "No consensus," it will be back for a 4th time within one day? Just trying to clarify what the views are here... effectively, it means that anyone's "keep"-vote is null-and-void. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the result is Keep, then I would say it is probably not be appropriate. But, if the result is No Consensus, shouldn't we continue the discussion until a consensus develops (one way or the other)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Am not familiar with the Wikipedia editorial policy: can someone explain how the AfD "vote" is handled? Is it based solely on the number of yeas vs nays, or based somehow on a subjective interpretation of the coherency of the various arguments made by the editors? Do editors with established COIs get their opinion heard? I would point out that Drsjpdc has been repeatedly changing the article and editorializing--after he said he would stop--does this not weaken or invalidate his 'delete' position?
Also, to be fair to editors like Milowent (who asked quite a number of times what is my relationship; not sure why you thought it crucial to use bold typeface): you should know simply that Hans Lowey, who escaped from Austria in 1939, helped rescue many Jews from the Nazis and arranged for their safe departure out of that country. Lowey saved the life of someone very dear to me, securing his release from the Dachau concentration camp. Certain editors have used this article to damage Lowey's reputation and cause pain to his friends and relatives. Sure, Lowey was enjoined by the SEC, but if the editors who introduced this citation bothered to read on, they would note that Lowey never admitted to any wrongdoing and was never convicted of any offense. In fact, he won a major lawsuit against his former company Forest in the mid 1980s that allowed him to continue developing new, innovative sustained-release drug delivery systems on his own. This article and discussion must be limited solely to factual information about Howard Press (two-time convicted felon, according to Press's own sworn deposition), not attacks and speculations about Lowey, Forest, or various editors.--Rikatazz (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rikatazz, its not a vote (which is why you see people saying !vote on wikipedia so often, it means "not a vote"), but numbers are not ignored. The adminstrator who closes can weigh many factors, including weight of the arguments and conficts of interest of editors. And thank you for sharing your personal interest in the article. While you pushed hard to make the article very negative about Press, when those materials naturally led to some negative press reports about Lowey, who Press is inextricably linked with in this article, you now sound identical to Press' son, bemoaning the negative material you don't like and saying it will cause harm to relatives and friends. The fact is, the whole article should be deleted as I've asserted above, as none of this material shows notability, in addition to the major original research problems. Perhaps you'd like to acquaint yourself with those policies and consider changing your (!vote) opinion on whether this article should remain on wikipedia--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I would appreciate any assistance in getting this trash removed. It by now should be clear what Milo was the first to note, and I certainly agreed was as severe or worse a COI for Liptower as for myself in the foolish creation of this article in the first place. He certainly has essentially admitted a direct connection to Lowey in this commentary, while still refusing to admit how. NOTE: clearly his story is almost 180 degs. opposite that of my dad's. One thing I have learned here, is that they became mortal enemies. What I meant by the "Golden Calf" allusion is that dad thought that Etis was possibly paid off by Lowey or, maybe Key, to do the "Counterfeiting" exactly to get him shut down and destroyed, so he would not have the wherewithal to continue his fight to get reimbursed by Lowey. We have an admission that there was a profit sharing agreement. If I fired someone for trying to steal my secrets and trying to forge my name, I would NEVER, EVER agree to work with that person again, and would frankly have gone to the Police right then and there and filed charges. In fact something like that happened to me with a secretary and I filed charges immediately! The very fact that Lowey entered into a sharing agreement, speaks volumes about the objectivity of this story too.

Obviously no one has all the facts now. Both my dad and Lowey are gone. However, it is also true that Hans Lowey was not an angel either. We have seen that he was cited by the SEC for securities fraud, and later even sued [1] by FOREST, for his "own" patent! And, in the early 1950's BOnded was charged with producing "adulterated" products. [2].

This HAS to end. ADMINSTRATOR. Please put a bullet in this now.Д-рСДжП,ДС 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) By the way, Liptower's story contains overt LIBEL. The charges he rants on about are unsubstantiable, and are unquestionably libelous. Д-рСДжП,ДС 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you claim as the victim of libel here? It cannot be the article's subject, as libel by definition is statements about a living person. Bongomatic 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the legal dictionary: (emphasis added): libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. Д-рСДжП,ДС 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this article. Not recent, but no reason to think things have changed. Note phrases such as "centuries of legal tradition". Bongomatic 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned by the very nature of this discussion. The use of the word "libel" has become strongly frowned upon at Wikipedia, and can lead to charges of violating WP:NLT, which in turn can lead to a very quick block. Please get away from this discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the pro-Lowey contingent (Rikatazz and Liptower) and pro-Press contingent (Drsjpdc) have been jousting like this for the past week, and I am sure it will only continue if the article was to be kept. I've found more original research sources that are negative about Lowey but have decided not to add them to the article at this point.--Milowent (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wise decision on two counts
  1. You're probably right that (just as long as Drsjpdc sees any hope for deletion, so that door of hope needs to be fixed or closed) he will continue, but that is not a legitimate, policy-based reason for deletion. On the contrary! The Law of Unintended Consequences makes it clear that inclusion of sourced negative information will happen. Not only is that NOT a reason for deletion, opposition by the COI-affected author IS listed as a reason for blocking the COI involved party (Drsjpdc) so that disruption will stop. Deletion should be based on policy, not the wishes of the author.
  2. You are also right not to include more negative information about Lowey, as he is not the subject of the article. The article is about Howard Press. That's basic policy regarding article writing. Articles should stay on topic and must not be used as coatracks to attack those who are not the subject of the article. Since Lowey is tangentially related to both the topics of patents and illegal activities, he can get very short mention, but no more than that. Therefore the inclusion of mentions of Lowey must be very short. If he is notable (and he may very well be), then write an article about him so those sources don't get wasted. I suspect an interesting article about all these aspects could be written in which both Press and Lowey are extensively mentioned. If that happened, it might justify deletion of this article.
Basically Drsjpdc has been walking a very thin line by first violating NPOV and then LUC, where he is threatened with blocking for doing what he's been doing here. It needs to stop so the article can be cleaned up and improved. As any COI-affected author, he should use the article's talk page (not AfD) to make sure that unsourced negative information is sourced or removed and/or proven inaccuracies get corrected. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can the article be "cleaned up and improved" when it so blatantly fails WP:N? There are no secondary sources which give significant coverage to Howard Press. DigitalC (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a mess. This is cobbled together from primary sources and some passing mentions in secondary sources, pepped up with some original research. Howard Press does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, so we should not have an article about him. Neither his patent nor his conviction add up to making him notable. He's run-of-the-mill. Someone might be able to write about General Pharmacal or the fraud case, but I highly doubt that either of those is notable. Fences&Windows 23:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. ^ http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CNY%5CNY2%5C1984%5C19841203_0046927.NY.htm/qx
  2. ^ http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/fdanj/bitstream/123456789/15905/5/ddnj05065.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Press_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1253777039"