Talk:DizzyFIX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dispute Spam tag

This page is the result of many discussions on the BPPV and the User talk:Mdwyer talk page regarding the utility of details surrounding home treatment devices for BPPV.

The device in question has been published in peer reviewed medical journals and as such warrants inclusion in this encyclopedic format.

Patients with bppv and users of the DizzyFIX agree on the talk pages mentioned above that it is in the best interests of the population at large to have objective and referenced information about this device such that users and patients can make up their own mind about the device and its use.

No portion of the wiki DizzyFIX article suggests a benefit beyond what is cited in the published medical literature. It is not promotional in nature and includes public domain images and references.

This article does not fit the criteria for deletion on the basis of SPAM and in fact adds useful material to a complete encyclopedia.Mmargerisson (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that article 11 of the criteria for speedy deletion states: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion"

It is also worth noting that "add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable." is already true.

Finally, in the guidelines on spam it reads: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." I would suggest that this is the latter - a legitimate article about a commercial entity. Mmargerisson (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from my nomination of the page for deletion. The fact that is was adapted from articles at the product's website, though, may be cause for a different type of deletion. It seems that articles should be written from scratch, not copied and adapted. I was unaware of discussions at the BPPV talk page; it is not on my watchlist. When I see something that openly discloses the fact that it was basically copied from somewhere else, I generally mark it for deletion. I will, however, be watching this page. I will also remove the deletion tag, at least for now. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence. I will amend portions copied and revise the source tag.Mmargerisson (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)