Initialdesign

Speedy deletion of Robert torbin

A tag has been placed on Robert torbin, 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 the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of pages for people of doubtful notability

Hi.

You seem to be creating a large number of pages for people whose notability is not demonstrated. Please have a look at [[Wikipedia:Notability to see if these people really qualify. Please note that if you are doing this to promote the people concerned you have a conflict of interest and may be blocked from editing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I completely disagree with you about the notability of the people you added articles about. "Top 100 doctors" sounds nice, but who decided these top 100 doctors?

Let me ask you a much more important question. Do you represent this company initialdesign, inc? If so, let me be very clear: promotional activity on Wikipedia is completely forbidden (that's true whether or not you are paid, but being paid is prima facie evidence). Using Wikipedia for promotional purposes will get you banned.

You can reply to this message on this page. I will see it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the fact that these doctors have helped thousands and thousands of people all over the world produce babies in the past few decades in part to the science and technology they have single handedly developed would probably be a strong factor the nomination of "Top 100 Doctors" which has been decided by the likes of Time Magazine, Good Housekeeping, and other notable medical professionals and professional organizations. When deciding if these two professionals would be appropriate candidates for wikipedia i looked through a list of doctors on wikipedia and noticed that these two professionals have many more credentials than a lot of the other doctors and have a lot more information. I do not understand how you don't believe that a doctor, such as Dr. Buster, who innovated and directed the first live birth through in-vitro fertilization is not notable. It is one of the most talked about topics and still raises controversy today. Maybe you have been blessed enough to never have to look into a subject as such, but many people,including myself, are intrigued by the advancement of technology that these doctors invented.

And no, I do not represent that company, I am in fact a 20 year old college student who was intrigued by a noteworthy subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physicians This is the list I looked through when deciding that these two pioneers should absolutely be included on wikipedia.

If you feel there are too many pages for these doctors, that I can understand. I did go overboard with that because I had just learned the feature of Redirecting.

IMPORTANT: And if you believe these two doctors should be deleted from wikipedia because of their use of in vitro fertilization and its interference with your religious beliefs (as noted on your page) then I do not find you a suitable editor for my articles. I find it entirely unfair if you are editing from a subjective point of view. (Initialdesign (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC))