Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of internet marketing gurus


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of internet marketing gurus

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:DIRECTORY. A list of names under the ill-defined heading of "gurus". For added good measure, the majority of them are red-links. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where should this list go? There's a well-known circuit of internet marketing speakers, and I'm trying to document it on WP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete ill-defined criteria with mostly redlinks - maybe recreate at a later date if the criteria for inclusion can be properly defined and the people on the list are proven notable. noq (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm building the articles off the redlinks as I go along. I'm not done yet.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well may I suggest you build it on reliable sources? You're missing the point of the AfD. There's no definition of why these people are gurus and no credible sources to back up your definition. For example, Theo Paphitis, while perhaps not an "internet guru", is well documented in reliable sources as being a successful businessman and someone qualified to give business advice, thus notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Contrast with the people in your list... HJMitchell   You rang?   02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As above and per nom, it's an ill defined list of loosely defined "gurus" most of whom are redlinked. If this list were to be kept, it would need some kind of prose explaining why these people are notable and how they are defined as "gurus" but, in most cases, if they were notable, they wouldn't be redlinks. HJMitchell    You rang?   17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrary and dubious criteria for inclusion. Created primarily to justify existence of Armand Morin. -Drdisque (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original prod endorsement. The list is based on dubious criteria. The "cart before the horse" argument mentioned on the talk page applies: if relevant articles can be created with reliable sources (note that Armand Morin has been deleted for lack of WP:RS), and the term "guru" can be defined in such a way that isn't purely subjective, then such a list may be legitimate. -- Kinu t /c  00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Only two remaining articles, both nom for AfD. .    DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete even removing the word "guru" wont help, as the list criteria are simply too vague. someone who makes money talking about the internet... nope, i cant see it as a list. there MIGHT be a category lurking in this idea, but i really cant say how you would define it. the internet itself is hard to define. would you be an expert in using the net for marketing, or an expert in laying fiber optic cable, or an expert in tcp/ip implementation, etc etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the term "guru" itself is enough to raise doubts about the validity of such a list. Perhaps internet marketers (or something) would work - and that "or something" is the problem. I'm pretty much restating what's been said above, but I think this was a genuine attempt at defining something undefinable; the chances of success there are never good. SMC (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (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.