Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Alexander Mandel


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark Alexander Mandel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

may fail WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete; copyvio. The article is a verbatim copy of the page about him at F.A.C.E. . The only thing they left out was his wife's cooking (I'm not making this up). If not qualified for speedy delete, then delete as simply a resumé of a doctor who had a successful private practice but does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. I found literally nothing at Google Scholar or PubMed, and his claim-to-fame book isn't listed there. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Interesting question: if a person wrote text for their own site (thus holding copyright) and then ported the same text to WP (an unadvisable-but-not-banned COI edit), would that be speediable as copyvio? Ah, that's a good one for RfA... My sense is that it needs to be flagged for some sort of CC release... Carrite (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. From what I remember from similar situations, it's still considered to be a copyright violation enough to warrant removal or revision of the content. I think that the general idea behind that is that the Wikipedia Powers That Be don't want to run the risk of the subject of the article getting angry for one reason or another, then saying that the site is committing a copyright violation. Not to mention that it just plain doesn't look good if something is copied word for word from another site.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the page I linked to it says "Copyright © 2012 Foundation for the Advancement of College Education. All Rights Reserved." That's not his own site, it's the site of a charity he heads. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.