Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Clay


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Clay

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable enough to warrant Wikientry as per WP:NIt looks like WP:promotion and lacking significant coverage in WP:RS. Only mentioned in USA Today and Wired.com in passing, Significant amount of references are directly from his own website Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.  What's offered is uncritical routine coverage (Wired), completely trivial mention (USA Today) or no mention at all (NHK), falling far short of what is required to establish significant coverage.  Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Here's a link that further qualifies notability: 12 Essential Tips for Search Engine Optimization from Smallbusinesscomputing.com. The individual is not "only", meaning exclusively, "mentioned" in the two sources quoted by the nominator; there are other reliable secondary sources with more in-depth coverage of the individual. Per WP:BIO notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Therefore, the individual passes WP:BIO due to the availability of stated sources. The statement that the individual lacks reliable sources per an entire guideline page such as WP:BIO doesn't provide any specific rationale for deletion of the article, and exists as a generic, blanket statement without any form of actual qualification. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The guideline WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is highly superior compared to deleting this article based upon references to entire pages of guidelines as rationale for deletion, because specific qualification from the guidelines weren't provided to qualify said deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That article isn't about him, it's a how-to article in a trade pub uncritically reporting a bunch of tips he's given the reporter on how to make your website do well on Google. The reporter doesn't appear to talked to have talked to more than just this one source and the tips offered are all kind of lame.  Sorry, this is not substantial coverage about the subject in reliable sources.  Msnicki (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a Facebook page and articles about people must warrant their existence in encyclopedia through WP:N, otherwise any persons who's ever been mentioned on web sites become justified to be on here. The link cited by Northamerica1000 quotes the subject a lot, but doesn't appear to satisfy source standards for WP:GNG. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Another link further establishing notability, from the Chicago Tribune here. Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Therefore, the individual passes WP:BIO due to the availability of stated sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A truly minor mention. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Added the links I quoted above to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Added another reference from Yahoo news to the article: "The Best Enterprise SEO Companies Ranked by topseos.com for September 2011." Yahoo News. Accessed September 2011. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncritical verbatim reporting of a press release. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Cleaned up the article significantly, reads much less like a resume now. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's less important what it reads like and more important that there are no sources to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – To whomever moderates this AfD and makes the final decision regarding inclusion or deletion, please refer to the article in its current state to view the significant improvements and reliable sources added. Here is the link: Bruce Clay. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There are absolutely no reliable, independent and significant references in the article or that I could find. Northamerica1000, you need to read WP:GNG where it says, " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  You say the Chicago Tribune article establishes his nobility.  The article includes 3 sentences of him, but not about him.   You say you added this reference from Yahoo News, but the reference never mentions him, just the company is ranked 6th. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 10 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.