Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Tabke


 * 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. If you want sources to be taken into consideration, you must list them explicitly so that other participants can evaluate them, rather than linking to search results and referring to them arbitrarily. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Brett Tabke

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not known much outside of own webpage, pubcon and interview with himself Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article doesn't contain anything that would suggest notability. No evidence of any coverage in reliable sources, let alone in independent ones. He is thanked a lot in book introductions, but that's not enough. Hans Adler 07:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * delete &mdash; per nom and Hans Adler. big fish in  little pond of techblogolandia, but not himself a topic of significant discussion. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but I'm re-opening it on a good faith request by Jehochman. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:PROMOTION. DonCalo (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The tone of the article can be improved through editing. This is not a reason to delete. Jehochman Talk 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Brett Tabke is one of the best known experts on the World Wide Web.  He runs PubCon, possibly the most popular webmaster conference.  A Google book search returns many hits for possible sources - http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Brett+Tabke%22 - including texts in English, Italian and German.  The fact that he is being covered, cited or mentioned around the world in reliable sources is a strong indication of notability. Wikipedia's natural hatred for SEOs - yes, some of them do occasionally spam us - should not cause an overreaction. Jehochman Talk 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also this: He was also featured in the Biography Channel special on the Google founders. Jehochman Talk 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * reply unsupported attribution: while you're entitled to your own opinion, you did not provide method and data used to substantiate your claim that he is "one of the best known experts" and your assumption "possibly the most popular webmaster conference". They're not attributed and to me they sound like unattributed voice in favor. Your disagreement with editorial consensus is not a reason to make a claim that its a natural hate or we're overreacting. Any persons of biography articles should have the same scrutiny of verification. Many journalists are quoted in many places, yet not all of them have WP pages dedicated to them. "SEOs" are not an exception to guidelines. Claiming bias for "dusty books" is not a good reason for circumventing reliable editorial control that many blog and personal sites are lacking. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash; i did do that google books search, but the trouble i saw with it is that none of those books discuss the guy. at best they quote him on stuff, and many of them are mentions of his name in acknowledgements and from blurbs that he wrote for the purpose of advertising books.  it's not that his name isn't out there in the world, but there doesn't seem to be much if anything written about him. i haven't seen the biography channel thing, but from the worldcat entry you provide, it looks like it features tabke talking about brin and page, not people talking about tabke, which again isn't especially relevant to the question of notability. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Being frequently cited is an indication of notability - not a determination, but an indication. One problem we have writing about webmasters and web marketers is that they tend to produce a lot of fluff and buzz about themselves which tends to drown out the reliable sources. It is necessary to look beyond all the noise to find the sources.  They are there. Jehochman Talk 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * if they're there, would you mind linking to them? the google books search doesn't seem to have them in it.  i would be happy to change my mind, but i really need to see something that discusses him.  i don't think that this is a case of fluff and buzz drowning stuff out; there are 20 or fewer hits on google books and fewer than 200 on google news.  i didn't look all the way to the bitter end of the news search, but nothing on the early pages looked at all promising. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite busy in real life. Cantaloup2 nominated most of our articles about famous webmasters for deletion all at once.  Too many discussions have been going on at once to do much more than try to raise the issue and hope that others will carry some of the burden to find sources. Jehochman Talk 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ah. well, i don't have time to think of an appropriate, dignified, and incisive response to your request that i just believe you that sources exist, even though i can't find them. i'm sure that such a response exists, though, so perhaps you can just believe me and proceed as if i'd placed it in this space. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable according to Notability (people). This seems very clear cut, and I don't understand why the debate was re-opened. HairyWombat 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence of non-notability? A Google Book search returns a large number of hits. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Brett+Tabke%22 It looks like there is enough there to be able to write an article. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a counting exercise; please read Notability (people), particularly WP:CREATIVE. What I see in the Google Book search you cited is a bunch of SEO people quoting each other. I do not see how this makes any of them notable. What I don't see is: Any biography, any well-known and significant award or honor, any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record, more than a few citings (not quotes) by peers or successors, any significant new concept, theory or technique. HairyWombat 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On any esoteric topic you find a lot of literature where the experts are quoting each other. Your argument is not based in policy at all. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash;HairyWombat's argument seems to me to be solidly based in the actual policies he cites in his remark. your argument, which seems to be essentially that there are a lot of google hits and that you don't have time to specify which of them are reliable and relevant sources, strikes me to be specifically contrary to long-standing consensus regarding deletion discussions, esp WP:GOOGLEHITS. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This statement, "Your argument is not based in policy at all.", by user Jehochman seems very strange given that my post was mostly cut & pasted from the relevant policy. I must suggest that the discussion would be aided if user Jehochman re-read the appropriate guidelines. HairyWombat 18:15, 27 September 2011 (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.