Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Whalen

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 02:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, WP:promotional. references in which self authored articles are used. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination: a search engine optimization (SEO) consultant, speaker and writer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what your reasoning is. That just lists what she does. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. But the original nomination didn't mention her field, either, and people browsing AfD for articles they might try to improve may want to know this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quotes from her and an article published by her do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable in the article and nothing notable to be found online, in Google scholar or in Google books. West Eddy (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally closed this discussion as delete. However, a re-list of this discussion was requested by Jehochman (talk · contribs) and so I'm opening this back up for discussion. — Scientizzle 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search on the topic in Google Books returns multiple solid hits. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jill+Whalen%22 Ignore the stuff on Celtic Tales; go to the bottom of the first page of results, and continue to the second page. There is plenty there to write an article, and more could be found in web-based sources. Dislike of SEOs (a perfectly understandable sentiment) is not a valid reason to delete articles about notable SEOs. Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yourself being an SEO invovled personnel is not a valid reason to make non-sense claim that nominations were made for the reason of "dislike". You need stop making things up Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen has an entire chapter in this book: Online Marketing Heroes: Interviews with 25 Successful Online Marketing Gurus . Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and I had argued over COI, I looked around. From what I gathered, your profession involves search engine optimization. In web articles involving advise on having a page on Wikipedia, you were cited. A question I have for you. Do you provide advise to people and organizations on concerning Wikipedia editing or for that matter, advise involving anything to do with Wikipedia for pay? Here are some articles I looked at Can WP help your business? The Art of SEO for Wikipedia 16 Tips to Gain Respect Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books So who are the people citing her? I looked at a few. Many are Jill of so and so dot com advises "a quote". Many authors appear to be other SEO people, for example Gerry McGovern. To me, this looks to be just another example of SEO producers quoting each other to build upon each other. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources listed above. Also see: this. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Many people have a chapter in a book. There are many authors. Author can write whatever they feel like in their book. That book includes a chapter for each person he interviewed.How do we know that book is a reliable source? They can write a section about their dog, their sister, their favorite celebrity and what not. I still do not find this author to have adequate general notability for inclusion. I hold my ground on my nomination. Wikipedia is NOT a directory of every verifiable persons we can name. It is an encyclopedia. Jill Whalen is not Oprah Winfrey or Thomas Jefferson. She appears notable in very narrow niche community but lacks prominence within the general audience. I am not reporting this from what I know. I am reporting from what I could locate through independent sources that do not involve those in the industry citing each other. Many of the blogs, .com sites that are not prominent to the general population falls in this category in my evaluation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is false. The chapter is an interview with Jill Whalen, not a chapter written by her. Would you please stop posting misinformation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You read wrong. I didn't state she wrote it. The book has a chapter for each person the author interviewed. One of the interviewee is Jill Whalen. I hope this clarifies it. I standby the contents in my immediately preceding post. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article and comments here including externals appear to raise the notability at least above the WP:GNG level of wikipedia inclusion. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basis? Would you provide links to a handful of references that you used to come to the opinion that this article exceeds wp:gng in that 1.) Coverage is beyond trivial(i.e. not snippets here and there), 2.) sources have proper editorial oversight or 3.) they're self-published blog, but the author has established notability through significant coverage in reliable sources in the past? Please include the specific sources you consulted so that we can independently review them to see if they establish adequate notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't understand why this debate was re-opened. HairyWombat 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd have expected a better self-promotional article out of a SEO professional, so I have my doubts as to whether the subject did in fact create the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have actual evidence to support your accusations against a named, living person? If not, please redact your comment. This page is not a platform for defamation. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was phrased in terms of my expectations and my doubts. I have direct actual evidence of these, as their holder. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're attempting to scare away editors with opposing views through accusations of wrong doing, such as libel, slander, defamation. Statement of personal expectation is an opinion, not a defamation. Cite the law or WP policies that define Stuartyeates as defamation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. Stuartyeates has presented no evidence that Jill Whalen wrote this article. He may not damage her reputation by making that accusation unless he presents evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 27 September 2011 (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.