Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William M. Murray

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Murray

Non-notable bio Cnwb 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ruby 01:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN sounds. Reads off like a resume --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A google search for ""William M. Murray" + University of Southern California" turns up 113 results, but I don't think that's quite notable enough. Perhaps not a speedy, but certainly a delete. --light darkness^(talk) 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - search "William Murray & Associates" or "William Murray" + "Motion Picture Association" - perhaps needs some expansion to justify notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.43.39 (talk • contribs) at 08:20, 2006 February 10
Delete. With respect, google may be a poor way to determine the suitability of a subject for encyclopedic treatment. For example, a porn star of absolutely no social, historical, artistic, scientific, political, or economic significance can easily get more google hits than, say, a 17th century thinker who was historically important in his time, and about whom there is an embarrassment of sources and references with which to write an article. In the case under discussion, I have some trouble seeing how the good gentleman merits an encyclopedic entry. He worked in the MPA for many years and now has his own consulting company—this is a fine thing, but to be the subject of an encyclopedia article there must be sufficient notability such that multiple independent source works are available upon which one may base the article. This article, however, reads like an advertisement you might find on a website—which, as a matter of fact, is exactly what it is. It's from his website, and as that is not licensed under GFDL, it's a copyright infringement. All of which is almost sweetly ironical: there is a good chance this page was written by the subject or someone who works for him—ie. we're dealing, ladies and gentlemen, with a piece on an anti-piracy motion picture suit who's being advertized for free on WP via a copyright infringement—possibly of his own doing. WP is not a venue for free ads, and until something of encyclopedic merit can be written about Mr. Murray, this page needs to go. ENCEPHALON 08:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, as per ENCEPHALON Ergot 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with delicious irony per ENCEPHALON.--Isotope23 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then send a DMCA take-down notice to the infringer :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per encephalon >:) Avi 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.