Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Arnesen


 * 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   redirect to California Redemption. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike Arnesen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, all citations are to blogs or self-published material. Esprqii (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is one of my first major contributions to Wikipedia and don't take this personally (as I shouldn't!), but I thought my sources and citations were thorough. I also thought they included plenty of citations that were not blogs and were not published by the subject. For example, Arnesen has been include at three different SMX (search marketing expo) events and appears on those (non-blog) pages outlining his notability as it relates to search marketing thought leadership. I also used a page on the professional association SEMpdx website, which was not a blog. A question I had as well, and I mean this with all due respect, are the sources I cited on Forbes.com really considered blogs? I'd (personally) consider anything that goes up on the Forbes website as pretty notable, but I would like to hear the opinion of other editors.

I also wanted to know if these same issues apply to the articles I modeled this one (in part) off of. Heather Lloyd-Martin and Kelly Clay and much less well-cited and have been live on Wikipedia for quite some time. If there's something those articles have that I missed, I'd love to be able to learn from it.

Lastly, I chose this subject in part because there was already an article existing that focused on Arnesen's music career under the pseudonym, Mikkei Redemption. That one looks like it had been up for years, so I'd hate to see my attempt at improvement lead to getting that original work removed from the encyclopedia.

Anyway, my vote is to keep, because I do honestly believe that subject is notable and that the article is well-cited. I will, of course, defer to the consensus of the other editors. Looking forward to becoming a better one myself. Dtjohnson79 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't see the original article--for future reference, it should have been WP:MOVED rather than redirected so that the article history would be maintained. But even that article was a bit thin on references; they are all self-published or fan sites. You have plenty of citations but none are to anything that establishes his notability in this field. Lots of people write and blog for Forbes, but very few are the subject of such an article. If there are a couple of articles that talk about why he is a leader in this field, then that would qualify. I don't see any of those sources showing that. I would add that a Wikipedia article about a search engine optimization expert sets off some alarm bells as to whether this article is applying those skills. I would suggest redirecting this article to California Redemption and expanding the bio there.
 * As for the other articles you cite, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But in those cases, I would definitely support WP:AFD. --Esprqii (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: notability not supported, at least not yet.  I followed the last six references but none of them are about Arnesen.  —EncMstr (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to California Redemption; subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources. Therefore the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. As the subject is a former member of a notable band, the regular practice has been to redirect the article to the band.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above, no other notability here. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2013 (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.