Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Pulizzi (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Spinning Spark  21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Joe Pulizzi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see mentions and sources, but no substantive independent content suggesting that this individual and/or his business venture is notable per WP:GNG. Note that the article has previously been deleted; while this version is different enough to warrant a discussion, it does not address the causes put for deletion in the past. Kinu t/c 02:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep (vote changed) Notable enough to me, judging from content. Innovator Of the Year and stuff. Are we looking at the same article? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. After wasting my time on article trimming and careful investigation, prompted by insistence of Niado, I concluded that all his awards are from marginally notable committees. His "365th fastest growing" because of growth from 100K to 2M in three years is slightly impressive only in terms of %%, but not in $$. One book self-published, another one looks cheap and I see no notice of it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Created by ABM’s Custom Media Committee (http://www.abmcustommedia.com), the Custom Media Innovator of the Year Award recognizes a custom media individual who has made significant impact on the growth and development of his or her company, organization or industry over the past year. I personally don't see how much notability such a niche award conveys (i.e., it's not one of their Jesse H. Neal Awards, but rather a new award presented by a subcommittee), but I'll leave that open for discussion. -- Kinu  t/c 03:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not Nobel Prize or something, but it is not a "Campbell School District Freshman of the Year Award" either. Industry niches have reasons to issue their own awards precisely because they compare among their own peers. I understand that some awards serve more for promotion of awarders than awardees, but as you say it was by a solid organization, albeit by a subcommittee thereof. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: In desperate need of a rewrite, but not a deletion. Published by McGraw-Hill among other things. The notability is there. Faustus37 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Honestly, this article should qualify for WP:SPEEDY as it is a blatant advertisement, created to generate hits for the subject for SEO purposes. The subject might be notable but the article would need to be rewritten from the ground up so that it is not promotional Niado (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence that it is "blatant advertisement". Please cite the passages which you think are advertisement. I will happily delete them from the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article contains the phrase "content marketing" 21 times. This is about 5% of the word content of the article, including the references list. External links seem to all be promotional venues for the subject, including his personal social media pages. References are primarily links to the pages for awards the subject has won, and links to buy his books on Amazon. The prose basically just expounds upon the evidently copious merits of the article subject, and provides biographical information directly from the bio section of his personal website. The creator of the article, User:Cmcphillips is a new user and has created the page in question as well as the content marketing article. I suspect that he as a particular wp:agenda here. Niado (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The %% is probably because it is all what this guy notable for. You cannot forbid personal webpages, as well as his businesses and books. What's wrong with "copious merits"? The article does not "expounds" upon them; it merely lists them, with references. According to wikipedia rules, personal website is a valid source for bio info. If you think that the term "content marketing" a nonnotable neologism (which I doubt), you know what to do. However you seem to be mistaken about who and when created and edited the CM article.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I was mistaken about the CM article, my apologies! I agree that content marketing is not a neologism (otherwise I would've nominated that article itself for deletion based on those grounds). But really, the article is basically a resume for Joe Pulizzi. I do not see how he is possibly notable enough, based on lack of reliable sources. With a quick search, I didn't find anything that would qualify as a WP:IS, and do not expect to. The fact that the subject is a lecturer and has written 1 non-self-published book does not make him notable. I find my own opinion here unfortunate, as I consider myself an inclusionist, but I believe that wikipedia is being abused in this particular case. Niado (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please take a glance at the discussion from the previous time this article was created (and subsequently deleted). My interpretation of that discussion is that someone working in the same industry (or perhaps more closely) with the subject created an account with the sole purpose of creating a promotional page for him. I believe this is the case with the current iteration of this article as well. Niado (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article certainly has an over familiar and promotional tone to it. This individual does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines, eg; no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Rotten regard       Softnow  02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete One book only, in less than 200 worldcat libraries. Not every author even  a major publisher publishes is notable -- the publisher presumably hopes they will become notable, but if the book doesn't sell significantly, that's what happens with most books and most authors.  DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 23 November 2012 (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.