Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Danny Sullivan (technologist) (2nd nomination)

Comments from the subject
The subject gave me permission to post these comments he sent by email.

“A web SEO salesman,” heh.

FYI: when Google turned 10, they thought I was notable enough to specifically mention my first review of them in their timeline: http://searchengineland.com/google-10th-birthday-site-interactive-timeline-project-10x100-to-improve-the-world-share-your-google-stories-14801

The Google Story, written by Pulitzer Prize winner journalist David Vise, has an entire chapter about me: https://books.google.com/books?id=H1OxMfZFKssC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=danny%20sullivan&f=false

In Ken Auletta’s book about Google, he called me “the closest approximation to an umpire in the search world.”

https://books.google.com/books?id=-oZY9GJW7YgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Googled:+The+End+of+the+World+As+We+Know+It&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAGoVChMI68iu0tGKxgIVBjCICh3N_gwu#v=onepage&q=danny%20sullivan&f=false

John Battelle cited me for special thanks for help in researching his book on search:

https://books.google.com/books?id=G4KfbOt7OYcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+search+john+battelle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIrpOP69GKxgIVliqICh2GaAA2#v=onepage&q=danny%20sullivan&f=false

And I was cited in Steven Levy’s book on Google: https://books.google.com/books?id=V1u1f8sv3k8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=steven+levy+google&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAWoVChMIuYaPh9KKxgIVly2ICh0-7Ak6#v=snippet&q=danny%20sullivan&f=false

Although the subject doesn't get a vote, I feel that his information and opinions should be considered. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For WP:BLPs, one looks for sources about the person. Quotes, or mentions of the person in articles about other topics are generally considered secondary. The strongest source here appears to be the Vise book, but I don't have access to it so I can't tell how much of the chapter is about Google and how much about the person. Let's assume it is a RS. The Auletta book (which I have) has quotes, but it's all about Google -- I don't see anything about the subject as a person.


 * It seems to me that there isn't a good policy for technologists, but here are what I see as the relevant policies:


 * WP:Notability (people) "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"
 * Significant coverage has to be more than a quote or a mention -- there has to be content about the person. And it clearly says "multiple".


 * I'm not sure if WP:Notability_(people) applies here, but it might help:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.


 * We can't use WP:ACADEMIC. We can only use WP:Notability_(web) about Search Engine Watch itself, not a person.


 * We generally don't keep pages on corporate executives who have been quoted in articles about the product area they work in -- that isn't considered to be about them as a person. So I'm still not seeing a strong BLP here, but my interpretation of BLP is... well, it's my interpretation of BLP. I think we are sorely lacking in policies in many areas, and technology/technologists is one of them. People who create famous software often do not qualify for BLP. Should they? I dunno. That's a discussion that, AFAIK, hasn't happened. If you do find other policies that I have missed, please let me know. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)