Talk:Edward Scolnick

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Vioxx[edit]

Is so much detail regarding Vioxx and the fallout for Merck necessary in this article or is it a WP:COATRACK? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vioxx and the fallout for Merck is one of the main reasons Scolnick is notable. I think it's necessary to revert your deletion. It's not eve so detailed... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is certainly necessary in an article where the topic is Dr. Scolnick. In the pharmaceutical industry (and on Google) he is notable mainly for his involvement in the Vioxx scandal, which is known as his pet project. This is easy to verify with minimal effort; these were on the first couple pages of google results: The Merck Vioxx Litigation: Edward “The Scalder” Scolnick, Merck's Fall from Grace, Will Merck Survive Vioxx?, Scolnick: retired but far from retiring, Ex-Merck VP Says No Proof He Lied About Vioxx Study, Evidence in Vioxx Suits Shows Intervention by Merck Officials, VIOXX AND THE MERCK TEAM EFFORT. So yes, it's notable. I could even add much more detail if that would clarify his extensive involvement. Natureium (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the consensus: this subject would not be notable without the contested claims. The content should not have been removed; it should be reinstated. comment There are other aspects to his notability: "MIT awards the "Edward M. Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience" in his honor". I would not consider AfD. Maineartists (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:BRD process, discussion must occur after editors disagree via reverts. Once a consensus forms here, it will be no problem to have the material added again. However if the main thing Scolnick is notable for is Vioxx, then he doesn't necessarily warrant his own article - you could cover it with ease over at the Vioxx article. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - User:Natureium the WSJ source is a blog and the Duke case study seems to be a secondary source. The other sources are stronger. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to use these as sources for an article, I'm saying that people have wrote these things about him in the context for Vioxx. If people are writing blogs for major newspapers and case studies, that seems like it would strengthen my case for notoriety. Natureium (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now what. Three editors favour re-adding it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it should be added back, but it appears consensus is against me. User:Natureium has re-inserted the material. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]