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 Userfy. Once the article clearly shows notability, it can be moved back to main space, preferably by an admin (not necessarily me, any admin will do). Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic D. Price

[edit]
Frederic D. Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two possible sources of notability for this individual:

Assuming notability is not established by the pharmaceutical career, can a subject derive notability from an organization whose article was removed from the mainspace by consensus for not being notable?

If this looks familiar, welcome back :) Shall we salt the article on Michelle Caplan? (She is editor-in-chief of Fig Tree Books) ;) Vrac (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Vrac (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard, if that above comment was directed at me, let me be clear that nothing I said should be interpreted as saying that the article "violates BLP". I'm not convinced that the person measures up to notability, however. None of the articles that you cite here are about him, but instead are about companies he has been involved with. They include almost no information about him as a person. They also are not strong publications. But I still am willing to give it more times so that you can find stronger resources. LaMona (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpreted "I do not anticipate that the article will meeting WP standards for BLPs" as your saying that the article violated BLP. Thank you for your clarification that you did not mean that the article violated BLP.

    Regarding your comment that these are "not strong publications": How do any of the sources I have listed violate Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations? All of the sources I have listed are "well-established news outlets". If a secondary source does not violate Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, it can be used to establish notability. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people).

    The article from Marin Independent Journal provides nontrivial coverage about Price's career:

    1. His family is from New York's Westchester County.
    2. He relocated to California without his family to become the charmain and CEO of BioMarin Pharmaceutical.
    3. He served in that position from served February 2000 and August 2004.
    4. Under his leadership, the company transitioned from a research and development organization to a drugmaker with two drugs on the market and a third pending approval.
    5. He said he left that position to rejoin his family on the East Coast.
    6. He previously worked in New York City at Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.
    7. He met the previous CEO of BioMarin at Pfizer, where they worked together for 13 years.
    Library Journal calls him "a successful drug developer with a deep interest in Jewish literature". Globes says Price is "known as an executive who saves troubled companies" and "Chiasma's investors apparently decided that his rescue skills are needed in more than one place".

    These sources are not merely "about companies he has been involved with". They do not "include almost no information about him as a person". The sources can be "combined to demonstrate notability" as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

    Cunard (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard, I don't see notability as being a mechanical counting up of sources, otherwise we could send bots out to create WP articles. To me, it matters what the sources say, and nothing here, to my mind, says much. I also don't see anything that would be the "precipitating moment" for the creation of a WP article, so I'm wondering how he came to your attention and why you thought he should have an article. (BTW, I've written for Library Journal and I know that they have neither reporters nor fact-checkers, so the "successful drug developer..." will have undoubtedly come from whatever promotional material he sent them.) LaMona (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Library Journal is a reliable source for library information, but not for verifiability that a person has been successful in business in a previous time - especially since that was a throw-away line in a short article about the publishing venture. I would still like an answer to my question about your interest in this, because it seems quite obvious to me that it would make sense to wait (at least one year, maybe two) until the publishing house has had a chance to prove itself and then create a page for it. Even if the publishing house is successful, I don't see Price as notable as an individual. He's a successful businessman, and has now invested in publishing. Why not wait? LaMona (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not following this conversation, but want to add that Library Journal is not a good source for outstanding claims (for the reasons LaMona already elaborated). Yes, the site is used as a reliable source, but I wouldn't base an article's notability on a claim made via that publication. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  17:34, 28 December 2014 (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.