Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander MacGregor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep both (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alexander MacGregor & Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology[edit]

This was originally created as a vanity article (content as written by original author). Rather than VfD it, an editor apparently ran MacGregor through Lexis and found a couple items, which were added to the article (result). The content added casts MacGregor in a rather negative light, and a complaint has been made to the Wikimedia Foundation implying the possibility of legal action.

Considering the complaint, we should only have an article on MacGregor, if at all, that we are confident meets our standards and is unimpeachably relevant and factual. I reviewed the article and removed the biographical material from the original author because it is not verifiable. For similar reasons, I removed information about his educational credentials that cannot be traced to a verifiable source without original research, and a paragraph whose only source has retracted the story. None of this content is acceptable for an encyclopedia — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources.

What is left is the present article (and Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, included in this request). The verifiable facts about this man boil down to: 1) he runs a vocational school; 2) he was sued successfully by an employee for firing her when she was pregnant; and 3) he was found guilty of a domestic violence assault shortly before he was supposed to receive a local civic award. I submit that an article that amounts to nothing more than this is not one we should keep. --Michael Snow 02:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not verifiable, not likely to become encyclopedic Trödel|talk 03:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (I agree with Fred Bauder, below, that a new article may be needed - but only for the School where MacGregor can be listed as the founder. Trödel|talk 18:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1,690 google hits for "Alexander MacGregor", but a larger number of these links are for other MacGregors. I can't find evidence of notability here...and quite frankly, I have little patience for those who write vanity articles about themselves, the truth about them comes out, and then they go and threaten legal action. func(talk) 04:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. The school, although not a liberal arts college, is post-secondary, so it seems notable, without reference to the ongoing schools debate. I lean toward thinking that the head of such a school would always be notable, but even if some or most of them aren't, a school official who's managed to get into so many publicized scrapes is. JamesMLane 08:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands the article is too partial (in both senses) to be NPOV. Brief research suggests that the preparation of an acceptable article would involve interviewing the subject or consulting archives in several countries. The former is unverifiable and the latter is improbable. --Theo (Talk) 09:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the existing article but leave open the possibility of recreating the article in a form which avoids the use of news reports of matters which were alleged but not proven. The effect of setting forth all the details of a news report which was latter retracted with an apology is to republish it. Fred Bauder 12:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, president of notable institution. Grue 13:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And keep the Institute too. More notable than random school. Grue 18:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preferably the wife-beating conviction story should be sourced directly to the court report, but the newspaper article doesn't seem like an unreasonable source in view of the criminal conviction. Michael Snow removed some general biographical information; this was a very bad move in my opinion and the information should be restored. The details of his Scottish birth, his distinguished academic career, and emigration to Canada, at least, should not be omitted without good grounds. If the article is partial, it should be edited, not deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Delete. I will follow Fred Bauder's lead in this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason they were removed is because they're presently unverifiable without original research. If you can verify his biographical information, feel free to provide the sources and restore it. --Michael Snow 16:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems to me that aside from the legal scrapes, there's nothing notable here and even less that's verifiable. I was unable to find much of anything factually relating to either article. For Alexander, I found mention of the human rights issue and the wife beating. There was no indication of any research articles, lectures, conferences, or other items of scientific value that's come from him. And not a shred of biographical information to be found. The school doesn't seem notable to me... no mention of research or great academic achievements, although maybe it's notable because of it's post-secondary education? Not sure exactly what the policy on that is. Overall it doesn't seem like it will be possible to produce an article of the appropriate quality. SirGeneral 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what its worth, there *is* some biographical detail about him available on the web, though perhaps of limited usefulness [1]. This text, and several variants thereof, seems to be the boilerplate he uses for conferences. In general it is consistent with the information from the original vanity article. Fawcett5 19:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences" yields 22 Google hits, of which 12 are unique. One is its own web-site (it trades as Pharmacy Prep), and the rest are directory/portals. They all read "Offers preparation courses and study books for Canadian phamacology exams (PEBC)" and the contact information on the Institute's web-site includes a mobile telephone number. It is not to be confused with "Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology", which yields 985 Google hits. I am not convinced that an evening class school with no notable alumni is encyclopedic but I am stone cold certain that the president of such an institution is not encyclopedic when his only verifiable achievement may be a conviction for a crime unrelated to the school. [For the record, I was also born in a country, gained several post-secondary academic qualifications, and lived in several countries; I look forward to reading my Wikipedia entry any day now]. --Theo (Talk) 16:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm off to create TheoClarke, International Man of Mystery. ;-) func(talk) 16:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    More comments In my attempts to verify some of the personal history and the college I have found that the institute has not been accredited, nor is there any evidence that they have filed for accredidation. Trödel|talk 16:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. TIPT is properly accredited registered in Ontario as a private career college. See: [2] Fawcett5 17:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're showing is that it's registered with the provincial government as an educational institution, which is probably required by law. Accreditation is an entirely different issue, and likely not handled by the government. --Michael Snow 17:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I stand corrected. As further regards notability of the school, it is worth pointing out that they verifiably participate in the manufacture of drugs used in human clinical trials. Whatever it may be, it is not quite your average vocational school. Fawcett5 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Institute's own web-site says that it has had 2400 alumni since 1992. --Theo (Talk) 18:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I didn't realize this vote was for two pages before. So I listed the second one in the header to be clear - if two seperate vote pages are the norm can someone familiar with VfD let me know on my talk page and I will put the second article up for a vote seperately. Trödel|talk 16:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article on school; unverifiable, not notable. Keep article on MacGregor. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both of these please they seem notable too Yuckfoo 18:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. Nothing here seems notable enough. Plus, a man who beats women has tried to sue Wikipedia? He should be deleted from the Universe himself! Sarg 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the caveat that either could be recreated as encyclopedic articles rather than attack pages (as per Fred Bauder). Nothing currently on either page is useful, we don't really want the vanity/attack stuff in the history, and it would be best to start from scratch on both. However, I would say that either would be an acceptable topic for an encyclopedia if/when verifiable and NPOV information about them can be found. -- Jonel 21:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Fred Bauder. --Carnildo 22:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the content can be verified. - SimonP 23:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Universities and Colleges have their own articles, as well as many other organisations. In my opinion there is a witch hunt going on to delete everything about schools from Wikipedia. If you absolutely must delete this i would suggest moving it to Students WikiCity. Beta m (talk)
  • Delete both, not notable enough. Incidentally, I don't like Beta m's way of boilerplate voting (see User:Beta m\vote\school). It is not so much that I don't think schools are inherently notable, rather my concern is that thoughtless keep voting is disruptive to our deletion processes which are meant to revolve around consensus, discussion and producing evidence of notability. — mark ✎ 09:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school, it is post secondary and thus notable, merge Alexander MacGregor into that article. Sjakkalle 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated by User:Jonel except that from what I see and can extrapolate, I do not believe Alexander MacGregor is encyclopedic even if the school turns out to be. Also, private law suits that do not go to the very mission of an organization are not, in my opinion, relevant or encyclopedic. If a school is charged for financial aid fraud or criticized for lack of academic standards (i.e., a "diploma mill"), that is different and fair game (if verifiable). DS1953 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might note that there is a difference between public post-secondary institutions and private vocational schools run, apparently, by "some guy". In general I support the idea of Wikipedia having a wide variety of school articles, but not every tiny vocational school. --Dhodges 18:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school as it is notable and merge and redirect any pertinent information from the Alexander MacGregory article into it. Bahn Mi 20:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:GRider, who is banned by the Arbitration Committee from participating in deletion debates. --Michael Snow 21:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep MacGregor and merge the school into it. Add the threat of legal action against Wikipedia (which should certainly be verifiable) both here and in Wikipedia, as demonstrating Wikipedia 's notability. This topic is also being discussed in Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Votes_for_undeletion. Septentrionalis 21:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Threats of litigation are a dime a dozen. This one certainly doesn't belong in the Wikipedia article, and I'd be extremely dubious about putting it in MacGregor's article. JamesMLane 03:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. —RaD Man (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "institute", for the reasons given above by Theo. (Incidentally, I note that the "reference" cited in the article is to a page whose main text is written in the first person.) Delete MacGregor, who is of no note as the head of an "institute" of no note. The award he won seems rather obscure. The allegations made against him are -- very unfortunately -- routine, so he doesn't cut it even on grounds of notoriety. ("Want to get into Wikipedia? Simple -- just beat up your wife!" Er, no thank you.) -- Hoary 06:15, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- BD2412 talk 17:45, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep school, merge person. Kappa 21:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. They seem like mostly smear campaigns, and not notable at all, except for the local media coverage of the allegations. Blackcats 06:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_MacGregor&oldid=1142654079"