Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Grehan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Nishkid64 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Grehan

Mike Grehan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO as a non-notable search engine optimizer. ju66l3r 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Googlebomb! per nom. :) YechielMan 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, the subject is quite famous worldwide. The article needs improving, though. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide any sources to give him notability? Speaking at SES is not notable (it seems like every SEO consultant on WP has done this lately). Nor is knowing higher-ups in Google. In fact, the article as it stands now borders on a speedy. ju66l3r 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've done a bit more work on the article, since I voted to keep it. Please take another look. Virtually every noteworthy search consultant or commentator has spoken at SES, but speaking at SES does not necessarily make a person noteworthy, I agree with you. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The changes have been for the better. Can you ISBN ref that book to better establish the authorship for notability? ju66l3r 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The book is currently published online. The third edition coming out later this year will be available in print, so an ISBN number will be available at that time. I know there are a lot of wankers who write articles about themselves, especially in the SEO field, but that's not the case here. Grehan is a household name in the world of Internet marketing, significantly more famous than a typical professor. That's the classic notability test. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)

It will feel more inline with WP:RS to see it published with an ISBN, simply because online publication (self-published?) does not rise to reliability (all of the high praise understood..but it makes assessment of notability difficult which is why they are not considered reliable). I was more interested in what I found in his bio for an upcoming seminar/conference that suggested he had multiple major newspaper interviews. These would easily satisfy notability and along with the BBC interview easily negate this discussion. As it stands, the improved article in its current state probably negates the need for this discussion anyways. ju66l3r 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, if there are additional references out there, I would like to track them down and improve the article. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this is encyclopedia, here doesn't exist anything like will be or going to be or one day. This is irrelevant. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • neutral There is not enough evidence to say one way or the other. But I do not see why there is prejudice against online booksd at Wikipedia , of all places. DGG 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Online books often means self-publication which means anyone can do so and notability can not necessarily be easily attached to being a online-published author (as opposed to an author with publications through an independent publisher). More information is available at WP:RS. ju66l3r 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct question is "Why he is notable?" and not vice versa. It is up to keepers to assert notability not on deleters. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that? This isn't a lawsuit with a burden or proof. We're having a discussion, so both sides should give reasons. I think the subject is noteworthy because there are multiple, reliable, independent sources of information. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:V The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Let's discuss sources one by one:
[1] - it is just a notice on the web, thousands notices about managers
[2] - It's his article, anyone can write to many webblogs, webpages, there are thousands editors, why he is notable ?
[3] - parent article says it is a page with BBC interview, but it is incorrect, it is an advertising to his blog.
I am sorry but I can't see any notability and I don't see that this person achieves WP:BIO. If you bring here some new evidence I will be happy to change my vote.

≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

resetting indent

  • Thank you for your comments. I've fixed the BBC links. I agree that editors adding content to an article have an obligation to cite sources, but that is a separate issue from AfD discussions. Both sides have an equal obligation to support their positions with reasons. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Tulkolahten, he is the internet equivalent of a motivational speaker, and do we need an article for every single one of those?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless further sources are provided to satisfy WP:BIO. CiaranG 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A quick search reveals he has been discussed numerous times in detail in the media. Multiple, independent and non-trival coverage means the subject satisfies the primariy criterion of WP:N. I added another of these references to the article. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 12:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree that Newspapers notices are multiple non-trivial works. Don't mix notability is not subjective with accepting every web page found over the internet. Those sources above, I think, should not be claimed as reliable in the meanings of wikipedia notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree the article needs clean up and proper referencing, but if multiple newspapers have decided he is notable enough to dedicate articles to discuss his achievements, he meets WP:N. He is the main subject of: "Technology pioneer blown away by the company he keeps now" (The Newcastle Journal, Oct 8 2004), "Search engine marketing: The Revolution Masterclass on search engine marketing" (Revolution Magazine, Feb. 2005) and there are at least another five other published articles where he is not the subject but is cited as an expert on search-based internet marketing. All of this is in addition to the BBC interviews presently linked in the article. The article needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted on the basis of non-notability. Ccscott 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if notable the article does not demonstrate that ... without proper sources and citations we may know who the gent was but that won't make it pass the 25 year test Alf photoman 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the 25 year test? Is that part of WP:N? If the article has problems, we should clean it up, I agree. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume it is a variation of one of the alternative tests offered in W:BIO which asks if someone will find this article useful in the future. This test is problematic in my view as it can allow people to slip into the "I've never heard about it/I don't like or care about it" trap and declare a subject not-notable because they think if they don't care now, no one could possibly care in the future. Personally, for me the subject of this article fails this right now (I don't care about the subject or find the article useful), but he has been noted and discussed multiple times in reputable sources satisying the primary test of WP:N and WP:BIO. It is not the editor's job to judge notability of every article - published sources often do that for us. If they think he is notable, the subject should stay and perhaps this will grow into an interesting article. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. ;) Ccscott 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep not very notable but passes litmus test for inclusion (cited in major media etc). --Duke of Duchess Street 18:47, 14 January 2007 (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.