Deletion of Howard Press (3rd nomination)

Comment: I stand by my !vote from the 2nd nomination, in that this article still fails ''''''. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: As Waynethegoblin says, the subject appears to be notable, and indeed the article seems to be rather well-sourced.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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  policy all along, and now that some unsavory details have been added to the article, as required by , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:LUC)

Comment: I haven't gone through the sources in detail, but judging from the discussion above, this looks like a case of  and : 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:OR)

Comment: since I don't believe that the "bust" or counterfeit operation would meet the inclusion critera of a stand alone article (based on ), 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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)  doesn't apply as Howard Press isn't a living person. (A) The policies about notability of perpetrators cited refer to 1E 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 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)

Comment: The crime and trial received very little attention, and the patent and dispute received practically none. I don't buy into the  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)