Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine People


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Search Engine People

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a million non-notable companies selling SEO services. LionMans Account (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire.Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably a candidate for WP:CSD. Doesn't appear to make any claim of notability at all. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently disagreed. Delete. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * weak delete the sources might conceivably be sufficient, but it wasn't clear enough for an A7, & I haven't investigated it further.  DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Salt it once it's dead I just went through all of the citations used in this article to support a claim of notability.  To the best of my understanding, this company is one of a self-referencing class of such creatures (California Business Journal, Vatalyst, Cruchbase, etc.) in slick pursuit of recognition for something they are not: notable.  The citations often lack authors (what kind of independent writer composes something and gets it "published" but doesn't want their name associated with it?) and as near as I can tell those who do put their name have been paid by the business in question to do so (i.e., chronic COI issues).  These businesses are clever in their desire to break into Wikipedia.  Crunchbase, which is one of the citations used here, even presents itself as being a wiki-based enterprise that anyone can edit— or at least, it will be one day, but not now: for now, any change you want to make to their database has to be approved by someone, which is so much less effort and expense than letting just anyone edit it.  In the end they are all just businesses doing business, and Wikipedia is not a business directory.  What especially irks me is the way they do their collective best to convince you otherwise...  Not nice, Precioussss.  Not nice at all.   KDS 4444   Talk  13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I made similar observations in my nomination at Articles_for_deletion/Airomo. I don't have time to do that for all these articles (the company that appears to be posting them has several people on its staff). — rybec   22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * we do not normally salt unless an article is repeatedly re-created, and it doesn't work if they use variant titles--some of the people doing this sort of article have figured that out by now. The normal way of dealing with it after an AfD is G4. These articles are a plague, and a danger to WP, but like all dangers are best dealt with calmly and systematically.  DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article and Airomo do seem similar. In this case, a person wrote an article, put it up for AfC review (which I declined), then made some junk edits to become autoconfirmed, moves the article into mainspace, and finally disappeared.  A lot of the same sources are in both articles too.  The site vatalyst.com seems to be another PR-only site.  LionMans Account (talk) 22:53, 19 August 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.