Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Strategies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn. ZimZalaBim talk 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Search Engine Strategies

Search Engine Strategies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is but one of many SEO conferences (albeit probably the largest). Only citations for notability are press releases or blog posts by Danny Sullivan, the creator of the conference itself. ZimZalaBim talk 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Most of what I see there are news wires of press releases, not independent articles where SES is the subject. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You should look closer, then. Lawrence § t/e 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ten seconds of looking past the releases got me: [1][2][3][4][5] all these, and there are many, many more pages. Lawrence § t/e 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Great - add them to the article. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The point of the AFD proven wrong, will you withdraw? Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Those actually seem mostly trivial mentions of SES, or simply a blog's posting of what was discussed there, but not "significant coverage". I'd rather wait for more opinions on the matter. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying its notable since Eric Schmidt attended? (I'm just trying to understand your position). --ZimZalaBim talk 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per passing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep even per nom; it's the largest in a major field. DGG (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment per WP:N "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." Igor Berger (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What's your point, exactly? We're working on seeing if consensus exists right now... --ZimZalaBim talk 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What you doing is canvasing for your POV. Look at the votes, they are all keep, that is the consesus. Igor Berger (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, what "canvassing" and what "POV"? Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of such behavior. Yes, there are 4 keep votes, but there is a deletion process to follow. (And while its certainly possible some other editor might come along and decide to close this per WP:SNOW, that hasn't happened). --ZimZalaBim talk 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it seems that you have been canvassing a POV: here and here. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Touche..:) But seriously, what makes you think this article is not notable? Igor Berger (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First, I still wonder what POV you think I have been canvassing. I see no evidence for such an accusation. And my reason for nominating is clear above. There haven't been any reliable sources where this conference is a subject of significant coverage. I don't doubt its importance in the SEO community, but many conferences are important to many communities - that doesn't make them encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your reasoning is sound, but if Google CEO Eric Schmidt attends the conference and Google publishes the trascript on its domain would that not make the conference notable per Wikipedia guidelines?
  • Keep It has good sources and is a reasonable page Brokenspirits (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep One of the oldest, and some people would argue the most important, industry event today, which got more competition lately, but that competition cannot take away what SES already accomplished in conjunction with other things, the establishment of an industry that didn't even exist 20 years ago to a multi-billion dollar industry that is established and respected. Industry events like SES allowed the formation of organizations for the industry etc. Real life get-togethers of people from the same industry are the foundations for the creation of any entity or body to self govern that industry. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then why can't we find citations that aren't just press releases or from Sullivan's own blogs? --ZimZalaBim talk 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Google and other search engine execs doing keynotes at SES was already mentioned, but not the facts that Google throws every year a party (for SES attendees and invited Googlers only) right at the Googleplex during Search Engine Strategies San Jose. It was mentioned in USA Today once for example [6] if you don't believe me. Product launches or new features of search engines and search marketing related vendors are also often introduced (with a bang I suppose) at SES events. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The USA Today ref at least provides an independent mention of the conference, although we could use stronger ones that make more than just a passing mention of the event. However, given this new reference, I'm comfortable withdrawing the nomination. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:25, 8 March 2008 (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.