Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Land

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 and redirect to Danny Sullivan (technologist). — Ocatecir^T 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Land

Search Engine Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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)— Jasonmurphy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, an ad. bogdan 16:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A bogus claim. What's it an ad for then? It has a few small ads on the right side, so that might make it an "ad supported site" but not an ad itself. Having ads to support the time and research needed to report news about an industry doesn't lower a site's credibility in any way. Please include more details bogdan, just saying it is an ad without supporting your statement is very lame. Jasonmurphy 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Funny Jasonmurphy, you should use the word bogus. I see no edits by you, you have no User or Talk page but you defend Search Engine Land's listing. All that you say should be stricken from the record. I say it is an Ad, as well and or SPAM. It is not noteable. Cite #1 has no reference to this site. Cite #2 is about the Yahoo Panama project, which deals with a new PPC method of advertising, and the only ref on this site (seaech engine land) is a reference that this was announced on seach engine land. So, If I put up a page and announce an event, does it make my site noteable? NO! It makes the news event so. Please, be realistic here! Cite 3 is about a lawsuit between AFP and Google news. Once again there is a oneliner that says Danny Sullivan makes a comment about it on search engine land. Great, wonderful, but this is not how cites are suppose to be written are they? The are suppose to be about a secondary source writing about the 'thing' the article is talking about not news events about other things. Show me books, that I can buy in a bookstore that is from a secondary source that talks about search engine land. Dont show me website that I can pay a fee to the holder to, so that they will post an article about me or my site. Come on people, look at this! The last time this other user posted anything (Pryzbilla) was a year ago. --Akc9000 23:44, 15 June 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.