Talk:Conrad Robert Murray

Notability

It has been over one month since this page was redirected to the death of Michael Jackson. During that period he has gained more than enough name recognition and notoriety to merit his own page, there is more than enough information about him through various reliable sources on the web and elsewhere.Tlatseg (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think various tags need to be included, such as California, Texas, Houston, Expansion, stub, and a number of other tags I might be forgetting.--Hourick (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He is undoubtedly a person of interest, and I think he warrants his own article, to include a shortened version of the trial article, and a link to the full-length version. Valetude (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Houston Clinic

The portion reading "ABC News reported that Murray's partner in his Houston office had his license revoked and the clinic shut down in 2002 for improperly dispensing medication. Law enforcement officials reportedly called the clinic a "pill mill".[3]" is problematic. I am fairly certain that there are sources indicating that these events occurred before Murray began working there (I'm still looking to find them). There is no source, so far as I am aware, indicating that any of Murray's licenses were ever revoked. The fact that he may have come in to a practice where another doctor had problems is perhaps interesting, but hardly the sort of reliable information that should be cited in a biography under these circumstances. Steveozone (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Let's have a discussion. I feel like this article should be redirected per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E. What do you all think? NW (Talk) 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• This article was already nominated for deletion on 28 July 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.[See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Murray] Tlatseg (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am aware of that, and I participated in the discussion. An AfD no way precludes a redirect; see the DRV that recommended having the discussion here. So, regarding my comments about redirecting? NW (Talk) 00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Apologies sir. I was not aware that you were aware that this was already up for AFD or that you had participated in that debate. I also did not know that the decision went up for review. Did not mean to come off as crass. My apologies again. Simply stated however, I still believe this article should be kept. My basic reasoning has not changed. I still believe his notability is worthy of an independent article. I also believe such article can and should be done as objectively as possible.Tlatseg (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • May I ask why? What information needs to go here that couldn't go in Death of Michael Jackson? I just don't see any notability outside of this one event. *** Crotalus *** 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That's the question that you need to answer. You know what Crotalus horridus' view is. You know what my view is, since I created the redirect here in the first place. As you can see, several other people besides us share that view. You boldly turned that redirect into an article. Several editors are objecting to what you did. Persuade us, here on this talk page, that there's a justification for that action. Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • As I stated on the original AfD review page, I am not a regular wiki editor. For the most part I stick to minor edits and a few worthwhile contributions here and there. But I'm also not some crazed vandal running up and down the Encyclopedia causing mayhem and chaos as I see fit. And yes I don't necessarily know all of the wiki policies. I started the article because I felt it was appropriate . Obviously also other people feel the article is appropriate because it kept on being added to. I wouldn't go so far as to say I boldly started an article, I mean it wasn't like I jumped in front of a bullet. As you stated in the AfD discussion page Uncle G, a simple redirect would have sufficed. But the article instead went to AfD discussion and the result of the discussion was keep. I'm not going to sit here and moan and complain if some higher-ups choose to reverse that decision. I would not say that other editors objected to me starting an article because it could have been deleted or redirected at any time. The objection seems to be to the decision that was made regarding the discussion. I don't think the objections should be directed at me. I was then and am now quite ready to accept any decision from the higher-ups including any decision by the higher-ups to reverse the decision made in the AfD discussion.
      • Now I can't really improve on my basic reasoning that I feel that the notability of Dr. Conrad Murray is worthy of a Wikipedia article. I also understand that many editors feel that does not meet WP:BLP or that it is a textbook case of WP:ONEEVRNT.You almost make it sound as if the survival or termination of this article depends upon my opinion. I know this is not the case. My opinion, whether other people agrees it follows policy or not, is that the article should stay. There is information in this article about Dr. Murray that would be lost if it were merged or redirected.Tlatseg (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge the information talks about Jackson first and him secondary. This is redundant information and not a real biography. Maybe if there is a trial and more of his life story comes out to complete a biography then this could be built. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• We should redirect and merge this article to Death of Michael Jackson, specifically the Personal physician section. No one knew or cared who he was before he was investigated for his alleged role in Jackson's death, and it's likely that no one will care once the investigation and/or trial is done. If they do, we can always spin it back out — no reason to delete the history. For now, this is a textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT. Many of the "keep" votes in the AFD completely disregarded Wikipedia policy, and should not prevent us from making the editorial decision to merge/redirect this article. *** Crotalus *** 13:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge I don't see any information here that would be lost if this article is merged and redirected. Almost all of the information here was first posted to, and was carried over from, the Death of Michael Jackson article anyway. The rest is minimal, is notable only because of said death, and can easily be merged by adding a sentence or two to MJ or Death of MJ. Steveozone (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I see only one comment for not redirecting within the past 2.5 days, as opposed to several nods to redirect, so I will now redirect the article. Please post any objections here is you wish to undo my action. NW (Talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently there is an objection, from someone who didn't comment, and perhaps may not have read (sadly). Isn't there still a consensus? Steveozone (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove redirect and restore the article - As other users have said, if the fact that thousands of international news stories have been written about Murray does not make him notable enough for a separate article, I don't know what would. As WP:ONEVENT states, "[A]s both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The Murray article contains important, notable, and useful biographical information that does not belong in Death of Michael Jackson. The result of the afd was keep, and we should respect that decision (by giving the article a chance to exist, grow, and improve) until there is a new afd. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is letting down its readers, who search for "Conrad Murray" hoping to find an authoritative biography but instead are redirected to an article on a more general topic. --Albany NY (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should Conrad Murray be a redirect or an article?

Given the AfD and the discussion on this page, should Conrad Murray exist as a separate article or a redirect to Death of Michael Jackson? --Albany NY (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• No - He is still a living person who is notable only based on one incident, and even as to that, his involvement is still far from clear. Nothing material to this issue has changed since the last debate, and anything notable about this person can still be put in Death of Michael Jackson--- he even has his own section. Steveozone (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Of course not. It is a textbook WP:BLP1E, and easily covered by the Death article. It's not even a borderline case. MickMacNee (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• No. I thought we were over this previously. A redirect to Death of Michael Jackson, or a subsection thereof, is all that is needed. *** Crotalus *** 21:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone else here. Only a redirect would be needed. Hmrox (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Should not be a redirect. Should be a disambiguation page for Conrad Murray vs. Conrad Anthony Murray (Actor). Conrad Murray is indicted for manslaughter; Conrad Anthony Murray is an actor in London. 69.114.19.224 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agreement on disambiguation page. Beatburp (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

Should the article title's redirect be retargeted to "Trial of Conrad Murray"? --67.169.28.10 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me,  Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Double redirect

This is apparently now a double redirect which should point to California v. Murray --Slivicon (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)