User talk:Firstrx

Speedy deletion of Forest Pharmaceuticals
A tag has been placed on Forest Pharmaceuticals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Triwbe (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Forest Pharmaceuticals
I didn't say it wasn't a real company. I felt, however, that the article didn't show that the company had any notability (which the companies you mentioned in your post do, which is why they have articles), the only purpose the article served was the promotion of the company, and it was quite clearly written as an advert ("innovative and effective medicines", "we are always exploring new product opportunities", etc). GBT/C 08:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reposting the article without addressing any of the issues which lead to it being deleted in the first place. The company is still not notable, and the article is still an advert. I have therefore deleted it. GBT/C 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a vendetta against you - and I don't doubt that it is about a real company. On the face of the article, the company is not notable. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a collective dump of the sum of all human knowledge. Companies must merit inclusion, and (as I've explained above), this one does not appear to merit inclusion. GBT/C 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently it does warrent inclusion, under Forest Laboratories. Many people I see have edited it and nobody has attacked its noteworthyness.  Most likely because it is in fact notable.  You appear to be the only person taking issue here.  That is ashame.  I would assume any action on your part taken against Forest Laboratories would then indeed look like a vendetta against me, but only time will tell.  Firstrx (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Compare the Forest Laboratories page against the page you were creating. The former is not written as an advertisement, and asserts the notability of the company concerned - I don't have any issue with its inclusion (nor was I the only person taking issue with the page you created), and find your speed in deciding that I have a vendetta against you somewhat laughable - you'll probably find it easier to get into Wikipedia if you leave your high horse at the door. Happy editing. GBT/C 09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)