Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Guy


 * 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   keep. However, future accusations of impropriety of any sort without proof will be severely dealt with. The conversation has been rife with comments not grounded in policies and guidelines, and have been summarily ignored. The only reasons why this was closed keep are because the nomination has been withdrawn (implicitly) by the nominator and due to improvements made to the article.  kur  ykh   07:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Guy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This biography of a living person has no verifiable sources. Several sources were proffered, but they all failed verification. Notability appears to be marginal. The article seems to have been used in an attempt by a search engine optimization consultant to advertise.See this version of the article with SEO spam. Jehochman Brrr 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge the verifiable content to House of Lords (band) then redirect - sources exist to verify some details, e.g., , . Not individually notable, it seems, but useful as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The only working ref in the article now is the Entrepreneur (magazine) one, and I'm not sure that's a reliable enough source for an encyclopedic BLP. I've found a working Billboard ref mentioning him, which I've put in the House of Lords (band) article. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-23t22:13z
 * Many more refs added recently, but still doesn't look like it qualifies as encylopedically notable yet. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-24t14:55z
 * Delete spam, blp with no good sources, no established notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep references updated for bands and discography, Also added seo citations.--Magicus69 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)-- — 74.177.103.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment 74.177.103.96 marked as spa incorrectly as this account has clearly added to the article through researching information on the blp. --Magicus69 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)- — Magicus69 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Further references added including 2 books article has been further cleaned up and i am trying to improve the language.--Magicus69 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Editor Jehochman has a clear conflict and should recuse himself in the interest of fairness. Hockman does indeed does run a for profit search engine optimization company. So how can we allow him to participate in the deletion of his competitors???? What might we be thinking to have the coyote guarding the hen house and how fair can that be. While references may need to be improved in the spirit of presenting informative content to Wiki researchers, Jehochman DOES run a Search engine optimization firm and IS actively competing for the precise keyword term he is seeking to overlord. IF Jehochman is REALLY interested in the process being fair, he will assist in guiding other editors to make this article better. Wiki wars are a waste of everyone's time and it is clear this article meets a higher burden of proof than most of the articles I looked at of a similar subject matter which are NOT under any type of attack. When we Wiki editors say the Copyright Office of the United States or Entrepreneur Magazine are not proper references for this article, indicating notoriety outside of the Recording and or Songwriting categories, we send the wrong messages and that the agenda here is personal and not in the best interest of making Wikipedia a better place to visit.  If Jehochman is the sock puppet that was caught voting for deletion it would make sense to me and that is only my opinion. For Hockman to jump in and say every vote for keep is a sock puppet is questionable in my mind as that delete vote goes to a SOCKPUPPET. What???  The only sockpuppet detected is the Jack guy who got banned for being a sock puppet when voting to remove. Now if any of you are buying the railroad job going on here please enlighten me. Lets all play nice folks.   Article has been updated to include songs written with DIO. Reference have been added for SEO -- 71.117.237.7 (talk) — 74.177.103.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To avoid any sock puppetry, if you IP and you Magicus69 are the same person, or have discussed this discussion outside of Wikipedia, would one of you please remove your remarks. Double voting is not allowed. Jehochman Brrr 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment cleaned up my previous edits sorry for mess --Magicus69 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is getting better and has article has value -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.29.12 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 125.163.29.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. There seems to be active sock and/or COI editing occurring on the page and in this discussion. (and see Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew, just for lulz). Jack Merridew 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This vote for deletion by Jack Merridew is a sock puppet and hence the vote for deletion should be removed from this page. I have seen  Jack Merridew tactic used before But if the vote is real it needs to be verified. --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I am a sockpuppet; and unlike yourself, my opinion will have some weight here. You are wasting your time here ;) Jack Merridew 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Are you here to help fix the article? Why insult other members? It does say you may be banned and your page leads to no where. If I am missing something then please explain in the interest of building and not tearing down.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Hockmans comments regarding a spamorama are in regards to some one placing a link to Mr Guys company. If a link to Mr Guys company is considered spam. Why is it Mr Hockman can jam his page with links to his SEO company " Hockman and associates? If I am out of line here some one please correct me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment His user page says " is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban." Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes but if you look one click further you will see it goes in an infinite loop. Just as the links on admin Hockman's page all go to commercial interest's. Commercial interests which indicate a more than clear conflict of interest. There is no way, anyone on wikipedia can say an editor / admin engaged in the business of search engine optimization can place a credible nomination for removal. Keep in mind Hockman according to the history page IS who started this whole mess AND runs an SEO company while trying to remove a rival SEO by limiting the article to music so he can fold it into house of lords therefore keeping Mr Guy out of the search engine consultants category. Now I did some research on the listings Mr Hockman DID accept as references and they are blogs? Why is it that Mr Guy is being held to a far higher standard than any other musician from MTV and or any other SEO in that category. Why is it that Entrepreneur Magazine is being challenged as a resource when a blog is. If you look at Mr Aaron walls rise to fame. It was as a blogger who was beig sued, NOT a search engine optimization consultant. AND 2 others in this category are not even listed as notable SEO consultants. And one is a Google employee who has done work on webmaster central and with all due respect has no relevance in this category other than she worked on a non seo related project at google. Now just because I worked on the space shuttle does not make me an astronaut. As a gentleman Mr Hockman can not run an SEO company and at the same time, "hand pluck SEO competitors out of Wikipedia."


 * Keep The article is of interest to us Michael Guy fans. There are more references for this article than all of the people in the search engine optimization consultants category who have submitted their own blogs as references which were accepted. This looks like harassment by jehochman who oddly enough seems to be a search engine optimization consultant himself. Are they going to let him get away with this clear cut conflict of interest? (added by ip address 72.90.110.108 which has, as the saying goes, few or no other edits outside this topic.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.110.108 (talk • contribs) — 72.90.110.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This can only be done by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this has been a noisy conversation! The recent improvements in the article have satisfied my concerns.  It looks much better now. c Brrr 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Hockman. Thank you for that comment. And thank you for noticing all the hard work the wikians have done. Sir can you remove the nomination for deletion?


 * 'Comment This is my opinion. Mr Hockman says article is much better and he is satisfied(see above). But does not remove the request to remove tag? How cleaver. If his comment was sincere he would remove the tag in my opinion. Is it just a ploy to cover his tracks? Does Jehochman run an SEO company from his wiki page that then in turn links out to commercial offers for his SEO services? And did Jehochman attempt to "PRUNE" the SEO consultans category? Was Jehochman s strategy weakening this article so it could then be folded in to house of lords therefore pleasing a friend who may or may not publish his article on his SEO blog? While it might be ok for him to link to commercial interests on his editor page, it is not ok to remove BIO articles of SEO consultants IF he is an seo consultant. From what I can see looking at the linkedin links on his page they do point to the SEO company Jehochman says he owns. What will happen next? The "it is out of my hands" strategy? While Jehochman steps aside? While Jehochman sockpuppets pursue it to deletion? Please correct me if I am wrong about this but it makes no sense to me Jehochman would 1.put the tag for deletion on the page and everybody works hard to make the article better. 2. Says much better he is satisfied on THIS VERY page. 3. Leaves the damage behind while editors are waiting to see if their hard work has saved the article. (The consider to remove tag can only be removed by Jehochman) . I believe he knows people are passionate about the Michael Guy article and states that on this page. He says he is satisfied, but does not delete the tag he placed? Some one please explain this to me as I have no idea what he is thinking. My honest opinion is Jehochman is out to remove bios on SEO consultants. Pardon me for my candor but I call FOUL BALL.


 * Keep I'm a fan of Michael Guy, and I found the article informative. Please keep it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.98.6 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article looks OK now. Anyone spot any major problems? Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It Looks good to me as well. I am trying to find the SEO article I read in pcworld on him but it seems their website is behind the magazine in stores. Can anyone tell me if the major tech magazines such as wired, computer world, pc magazine etc as good resources for his SEO?- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.237.7 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I keep track of Michael's SEO and have read most of his articles. I find this article useful and I think this is a bit of wiki bullying going on and perhaps the attempt to control an seo BIO under the guise of no resource being good enough Mr Guy does SEO for the head of the FHA come on guys, really now -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.13.16 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keepthis is an informative article that I really enjoy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.32.49.5 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (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.