Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Wall: Difference between revisions

Aaron Wall

Aaron Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Known for one lawsuit that went nowhere. Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. --BweeB (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep easy to find many reliable sources. A notable person in his field. I agree the lawsuit is a minor event. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What happened to all of them? Perhaps you could add some more information and sources to the article. Assuming you're correct, that would save everyone a lot of trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Wp:BLP1E unless someone produces significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that give biographical coverage to this person outside the context of the one event lawsuit. Jehochman, please provide links to such sources that are "easy to find". Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I could only find junk about his SEO products. He has a lot of google hits, but his entire job is focused on creating google hits so that is meaningless. No significant coverage in secondary sources, just a bunch of tips on how to rank high with search engines. Delete per WP:N --Odie5533 (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete All I could find through public channels are variations of his own website, numerous quotes of himself on other websites, but there is no secondary source from credible sources verifying him as notable as Jehochman is stating. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:COI User:Jehochman is extensively involved in this article if you care to peek through edit history, such as adding external links meant to create traffic to web page of Aaron Wall. He also happens to be the one to his photo as well. I think there is reasonable suspicion to say that he at least holds significant stake in this page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources:

1. http://www.searchmarketingstandard.com/sem-blogs-you-must-read
2. http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/technology-web/2011/08/12/six-seo-tools-every-small-business-needs-to-use/
3. http://influencers.smallbiztrends.com/news/champions
4. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2052164/Aaron-Wall-Calls-Out-Google-For-Allowing-Scam-Marketing-On-PPC
5. http://www.blogtrepreneur.com/2010/11/24/aaron-wall-interview-ceo-and-founder-of-seo-book/
6. http://searchenginewatch.com/search?q=Aaron+Wall
7. http://search.searchengineland.com/search?w=Aaron+Wall

There are also multiple hits for Aaron Wall and SEObook in Google Books.

To start with one must be slightly familiar with the industry to recognize which sources are reliable. Search Marketing Standard, Fox Business, Search Engine Watch and Search Engine Land are all good sources. The others are possibly good. The existing article is well sourced and isn't causing any harm. If somebody had time (I don't at the moment), it would be possible to expand the article further. WP:TIND. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• None of those sources provide significant coverage of the author, they are just trivial mentions of him or his blog (which are two different things). Also, see WP:AUTHOR. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This is absolutely true for this individual. They are widely cited. The things I posted are not just trivial mentions. You need to actually look through them a bit, rather than just posting a dismissive remark. Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did go through each source that you have posted. I changed your list to numbered so I could easily reply:

1. has brief mention of the person's blog. Does not support notability for the person himself.
2. No mention of the author.
3. This is the only remotely supporting source. The author and 99 other people won a championship. I'll leave it to others to decide if this award is prestigious enough to make all of its receivers notable people.
4. This is one news article about the author and appears to be in a reliable source.
5. An interview with an unreliable does not support notability.
6. I couldn't find any articles here that are really what we are looking for, but the body of articles tends towards that they cite him a lot.
7. Per [1], the authors of each site appear be posting about each other.

I am not sure that having these few different sources is sufficient to establish notability. I am leaving my vote as it is, pending further argument. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think Jehochman's sources are of higher quality than you do. First, I don't think it matters that much whether the cite is about Wall or about his blog. Second, I agree with Jehochman that the industry context is important in whether Wall is notable, and although I'm not familiar with the industry, it seems he's a notable player within that industry. Thus, my only remaining question is whether the industry is notable enough in the first instance. For example, a local event may be notable in the locale but not sufficiently notable elsewhere to justify an article about the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've looked at a few and I still haven't found sources meeting wiki standards. As long as the writing is for Wiki, the sources need to be up to wiki quality WP:Sources. Many of them are opinion based free writes and are not written on research based data. While notability within the industry may matter for industry news letters, but if its someone little known outside of their niche, it isn't. Sure, Jehochman thinks he is, but is he when viewed under the guideline of WP:N? I think not. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Bbb23 and Cantaloupe2, I sincerely thank you for looking at this with an open mind. As an insider, my perspective is biased. To me, Aaron Wall is notable, but to those outside the search marketing community it might not look that way, and perhaps the references are too thin to write a proper article. This stub was created in 2007 and since then Wikipedia has evolved. If the result here is to delete (or merge a few bits into Traffic Power), I can accept that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. At best, we have an individual known for one (minor) event WP:BLP1E. As others have observed, Google produces lots of hits, but none are helpful. Msnicki (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - At best worth mentioning in the Traffic Power article, but that article would just barely pass notability requirements itself, assuming it even does. This guy's a footnote to a footnote. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. A footnote to Traffic Power.Racconish ^Tk 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  That article you're proposing merger to is on shaky ground as well. It does not have credible references and notability is questionable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria (WP:BIO). Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)