Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Land: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Jasonmurphy (talk | contribs) |
→[[Search Engine Land]]: I don't think there's spite |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*'''Strong Keep''' The site is a regular and authority reference that I personally use for professional training, industry news, and as an educational reference to others. It is one of the foremost leading portals that industry insiders can turn to for up-to-date and accurate news about search engines, internet marketing, and social media. [[User:Jasonmurphy|Jasonmurphy]] 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Strong Keep''' The site is a regular and authority reference that I personally use for professional training, industry news, and as an educational reference to others. It is one of the foremost leading portals that industry insiders can turn to for up-to-date and accurate news about search engines, internet marketing, and social media. [[User:Jasonmurphy|Jasonmurphy]] 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''comment''' Note to admin: I have reason to believe the article was submitted for deletion out of personal spite and unresolved disagreement between the original article author and the nominating user. [[User:Jasonmurphy|Jasonmurphy]] 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) |
*'''comment''' Note to admin: I have reason to believe the article was submitted for deletion out of personal spite and unresolved disagreement between the original article author and the nominating user. [[User:Jasonmurphy|Jasonmurphy]] 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
** Let's assume good faith. I have no problem whatsoever with Akc9000. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:18, 9 June 2007
- Search Engine Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
Propose Delete, since this article is not noteworthy as is basically an ad for a website that sells ads, why should it be in Wiki? Look at the cites, one or two words in a cite and some do not mention this site at all. This is just a website that gets paid for advertising.Akc9000 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep- This news site is considered one of the leadings sources of news about the search engine marketing industry, as shown by its numerous citations in the traditional press. This source was deemed reliable by consensus during the successful featured article nomination of search engine optimization
. [1] Jehochman Talk 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - There are no third-party sources about the subject. If you could improve the article with some industry news from reliable sources that discuss the set-up or the work of the company then it would be more acceptable. As is said above, a few minor citations in other news articles is not sufficient, and the Finance Visor article is basically a redistributed press release from the Company. If this site was important enough then someone would have written about it independently. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not particularly noteworthy, smacks of advertising. cornis 13:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Danny Sullivan (technologist), until such time as this article can be more than a stub. I've copied over the content already. For the sake of developing a consensus, I have changed my position. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Reuters cited it as 'search engine land blog' so....for now the best place for it would be on Danny Sullivan's page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep - It's already the most authoritative website in its industry and deserves a spot on Wikipedia. The article could use a bit more detail, though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryzbilla (talk • contribs)
- If you feel that way, you can help by adding details. The subject has posted a list of sources here and here. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Note to closing admin: This discussion was mentioned in an article at Search Engine Land. [2]. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Yes, the current article is stubby. But site itself is widely known and respected in its industry. A significant article could be written about it based on industry sources Seth Finkelstein 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The site is a regular and authority reference that I personally use for professional training, industry news, and as an educational reference to others. It is one of the foremost leading portals that industry insiders can turn to for up-to-date and accurate news about search engines, internet marketing, and social media. Jasonmurphy 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- comment Note to admin: I have reason to believe the article was submitted for deletion out of personal spite and unresolved disagreement between the original article author and the nominating user. Jasonmurphy 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Let's assume good faith. I have no problem whatsoever with Akc9000. Jehochman Talk 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)