Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen M. Spence


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Karen M. Spence

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Autobiographical article for a person of questionable notability. Majority of the links are to her own academic papers - no indications that they are notable. Of the rest, her claims of speaking and modeling could not be verified with the references provided. A Google news search on "Karen M. Spence" shows zero results. Standard search is inconclusive, given more than one "Karen M. Spence" out there. However, searches on "Karen M. Spence" "SEO expert" and "Karen M. Spence" "Paul Spence Consulting" both shows little outside this article or Spence's LinkedIn profile. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * *User MikeWazowski is unfamiliar with google searching. Searching on two terms alone doesn't indicate notability. I don't see wiki policies that indicate that notability can be established by 2 search terms alone.  There is more in the world than Google. Print publications are equally important.  Supposedly Wiki doesn't show preference over online references but I am beginning to wonder if this is truly the case. Kmhistory (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete my article. I am new to wiki and unclear about the 'wiki language'. I cited sources based on academic sourcing, not wiki sourcing. I am attempting to rectify the issues and am in no way being disruptive. Some sources are print sources and not available online. I have provided the citations. Additionally, I am considered to be notable in the archaeological community and my ideas are vanguard regarding the commercialization of forgotten sites. Archaeology has not really caught up to the 21st century and I am pioneering online resources for the field! I have presented in Italy on the topic in a public forum, on television and will be doing so again this month. I am working to get this article inline with your guidelines and promise that I am not being disruptive. I am surprised at the editor's accusatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Per the nomination, the links provided are not references demonstrating notability; they are either the subject's papers or self penned articles. I can't find anything to suggest she has notability sufficient to meet the baseline standard. QU TalkQu 18:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE. Notable in her field. Articles have been widely distributed to scholars and non-scholars as well. I frequently research and present on the subject of forgotten or lesser known archaeological sites.  My SEO work targets Asian/mostly Chinese/ audiences.  It is very common for SEO's not to attach their name to websites because the Google Algorithm is opposed to the industry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

*DO NOT DELETE. I have used Karen Spence as an SEO for my medical device/diagnostics company. I heard of her through colleagues in the industry who had used her and was very satisfied with the results. She is very well known in her industry and considered to be a notable and sought after professional. Our confidentiality agreements prevent her from putting her name on my website. This is standard practice in the medical industry. V. Wilson, Head of Marketing, UK. — 72.130.137.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Interesting note - the above comment, allegedly from a "V. Wilson" at an unnamed company in the UK, was actually posted from an IP in San Diego, CA, where Spence lives. Curious. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this vote is likely a sockpuppetry violation and should be ignored. I've opened an investigation at Sockpuppet_investigations/Kmhistory. —Eustress talk 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per this edit by the IP, in which she identifies herself as Kmhistory, I've gone and struck this comment completely, as it is fraudulent. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. The closest I see to her being in a newspaper is the letter to the editor she wrote to the Pacific Sun&mdash;which, up until a few minutes ago, was mentioned in the article as her being published as an advocate of the FDA. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE . (struck, user has already !voted above) Actually, I have a long history of advocacy for the FDA dating to 1999. Many of my SEO activities relate to medicine/medical devices/biomarkers thus the FDA is an organization for which I have a strong opinion. This was but one example. The Pacific Sun is a PRINT newspaper in Marin County and yes, that letter was published IN PRINT. THEY ALSO ARCHIVE ONLINE. Thus the citation is correct and your assertion of 'closest to being printed' is completely inaccurate. Prior to posting snarky comments, please do your research. I am happy to send a copy of the PRINTED article to you in order to 'verify'.   Kmhistory (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Pacific Sun wrote an article about you, why did you not cite that in the article instead of citing the opinion letter? Claiming to be published on a subject based on an op-ed piece is a little overinflated. I've had recipes in the newspaper, but I would never claim to be a published advocate of vegetarian food. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Pacific Sun wrote an article about you, why did you not cite that in the article instead of citing the opinion letter? Claiming to be published on a subject based on an op-ed piece is a little overinflated. I've had recipes in the newspaper, but I would never claim to be a published advocate of vegetarian food. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of a 'little overinflated' is simply that- just your opinion. I never claimed that the Pac Sun wrote an article about me. Where are you getting this idea? The statement in the article is factually correct and I believe you are targeting me for my FDA views. There is evidence to support that I am an advocate of the FDA, the Pac Sun PRINTED article is but one. It is not the main theme of my article.Kmhistory (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You did say, "I am happy to send a copy of the PRINTED article to you in order to 'verify'." So is there an article or just your op-ed letter? —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I am unable to find any of the coverage in secondary sources required to meet WP:GNG. A collection of op-ed pieces and non-peer-reviewed works, as well as photographs of the subject without any critical commentary on her modeling career, do not qualify as any sort of reliable sources. -- Kinu  t/c 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability threshold and article is pure self-promotion—she even included a link to her LinkedIn profile on the page. —Eustress talk 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Little but self-promotion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. No WP:RS and no actual claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. Pure self-promotion. LeSnail (talk) 21:05, 9 March 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.