Deletion of Howard Press (2nd nomination)

Comment: While the article certainly has claims to notability, there are no references to build an article around. The only substantial reference is the patent. Where are the references that mention Press, and the importance of his discovery? If the claims are true, and enough |original research could be built, it could probably be published in a pharmaceutical journal. However, until something is published elsewhere, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: further to my existing keep vote, the new material added to the article that asserts a course of well-documented and continuing criminal conduct is a separate, independent ground of notability, that by itself satisfieds 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per no reliable secondary sources that address the subject in detail (please feel free to prove me wrong).  Also I dislike the conflict of interest associated with someone writing an article about their father, in particular with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Howard_Press&action=historysubmit&diff=320119024&oldid=320118387 this comment on the talk page expressing that COI is irrelevant, as he may be the only person on the planet who knows the story, which by definition, is failure to pass the |general notability guidelines and |reliable source guidelines, and the | verifiability policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: There is plenty of assertion of notability, but unfortunately it is not borne out by the sources. Uniformly except the patent, the references presented support only ancillary points, leaving the main thrust of each paragraph as unsupported |original research. References 13 and 15 are to the same article, which discusses Nitroglyn but not Press
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:original research)

Comment: per the lack of |reliable sources. The article contains many sources, including http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/05/obituaries/hans-lowey-86-developer-of-pills-with-slow-action.html 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  and  because there are no sources that would allow him to pass , 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 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Howard%20Press%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws none.My own searches for sources on Google News Archive (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&q=%22Howard+Press%22+%22New+York%22&cf=all 1, http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Howard+Press%22+patent&btnG=Search&um=1&scoring=a 2, and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Howard+Press%22+%22sustained+release%22&btnG=Search&um=1&scoring=a 3) and Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22Howard%20Press%22%20%22New%20York%22&cf=all&sa=N&hl=en&tab=np 1, http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Howard%20Press%22%20patent&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&tab=np 2, and http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Howard%20Press%22%20%22sustained%20release%22&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&tab=np 3) return no valid sources that could be used to construct a biography, so I conclude that Howard Press is non-notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:BIO||WP:ANYBIO||WP:GNG||WP:V)