Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Murad


 * 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 delete. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  07:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Murad
This was tagged as a copyvio, but I'm not sure that it's a word for word cut and paste. I am sure that it's spamvertising for the good doctor's dermatology business. NawlinWiki 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn bio. No 3rd party secondary sources appear to exist. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I tagged it as a speedy, but upon closer review, the author changed a few sentences so it's not a cut and paste.  Darn.  -- Merope Talk 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:BIO.--Gay Cdn (talk)(email) (Contr.) 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, I work for Murad and www.murad.com and we are trying to create an article that meets the standards of Wikipedia. We are not infringing on any copyrighted material as it is our copyright.  Please instruct us on creating this in accordance to Wikipedia standards.  We have followed the examples of Dell and other large companies.  We are not spamvertising, we have a small number of informational links to support the article.  Where is the spam?  Each article we looked at on Wikipedia has the same.  Please inform us how we are breaking any of Wikipedia's rules.  We would like to represent our company and provide the public information on Dr. Murad and Murad, Inc.  The accusations above are not based in fact.  First, there was a mistake by someone flagging us for speedy deletion, based on a copy and paste copyright infringement. We can not infringe on our own copyright and revised some of the initial copy we wrote.  We have met the criteria of WP:BIO. The information is factual and unbiased. We only state purely unopionated facts about Dr. Murad and his contribution to the Dermatology field.  Instead of false accusations, please provide solutions to some real issues with the article so we can correct them.  We have taken out anything that could be considered opinion and added a reference to www.acnecomplex.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.214.63.36 (talk • contribs)
 * Since you ask You have not followed the example of Dell, since that article was written by people not associated with Dell, using third party sources independent of Dell, and includes criticism of the company, as required by the core policies of Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. By your admission above, this article violates all three policies.  It is all but impossible for you, as an employee of Dr. Murad, to write a policy-conforming article, and a non-conforming article written by someone with a financial interest in the subject is, by Wikipedia's definition, spam.  If and when Dr. Murad has enough written about him independent of his own advertising and press releases, someone else will create an article.  Robert A.West (Talk) 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are reasons that WP:VANITY is a guideline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Companies are judged by the standards at WP:CORP.  Individuals are judged by the standards at WP:BIO.  To meet either standard, there need to be independent Reliable Sources about the subject of the article.  This is to ensure that WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, both of which are core policies, can be adhered to.  Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business.  GRBerry 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per point made by Robert A.West. GregorB 17:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.243.44 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.