Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Stricchiola

Add links
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As far as I can tell, the numbers are split about 7-6 in favour of delete. That's not normally going to lead to a consensus to delete unless there are unusual circumstances, such as one side having significantly stronger arguments than the other, so much as that can be ascertained objectively. In this case, the final three unchallenged delete !votes—DGG, ItsZippy and Metropolitan90—demonstrate such strength.

DGG and Metropolitan90 highlight a number of fundamental misconceptions behind a number of the keep !votes, such as the inaccuracy of the assertions that the subject's work was covered significantly in The Google story and that The Google story is a Pulitzer prize-winning book. DGG also demonstrates with clear evidence that the subject's own book is not as prominent as asserted, without any evidence, by some on the keep side. ItsZippy is the only editor in the debate, on either side, to comprehensively discuss the sources on offer as opposed to making generalised assertions about the sufficiency of the sourcing.

That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Stricchiola[edit]

Jessie Stricchiola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:promotion direct link to where people can buy a book she authors. WP:N. She's quoted in multiple articles, but not much coverage about her per se. I don't feel that this person is noteworthy enough to have a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Search for her last name in the articles to see how much coverage she got in them. The Washington Post article linked to in the article is ample coverage. [1] There is ample coverage of her in the bestselling Pulitzer Prize winning book The Google story. Dream Focus 23:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment SEO is the art of marketing. The objective of SEO is to shift search outcome towards how you want it to show. Prior consensus regarding WP:BLP was that mentions in articles is insufficient to establish WP:N and to establish it, the articles must be about the subject. Precedence of AfD regarding spammy WP:BLP corroborates this. That article is not about her. Here is something I searched on a whim. [2]. While an electrician is quoted, the article is not about him, thus it fails to establish notability for him to satisfy WP:N. Search his name and you'll find him in Taipei Times too. Creating a whole bunch of personal .com sites and blogs about him and saying he's been mentioned in major news paper do not make him encyclopedia worthy. The results from web search that comes up on numerous blogs and .com sites that arise from promotional efforts do not count. From the argument you present, any author who's ever been interviewed and mentioned or quoted in mainstream media is notable enough to warrant stand alone encyclopedia page about them. This however, is not the case on Wikipedia. If Washington Post had an article about her, then I would agreed that she meets the guideline of notability per WP:N. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the above statement that the article must be primarily or specifically about the person, is not correct. The article can be about anything at all, so long as it provides substantial coverage of the person. Mere mentions are of course not substantial coverage, but the dividing line is unclear & a often a matter of judgment. Similarly,. being frequently quoted by multiple media sources as an authority on a subject does establish notability , but we are normally rather skeptical about applying this in borderline cases. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thanks for your comment. I will research this further. I'd appreciate if you could link me to relevant WP pages addressing your view for my reference. As far as media "sources", how do you see non main stream sole proprietor operated media outlets with no editorial intervention or heavily biased editors? Some authors have multiple affiliated .com websites and I think its fairly clear that these don't count as multiple sources. The dividing line between "reliable, media source" vs "some commercial website" can be cloudy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She wrote a popular book on the topic of search engine optimization, and she was an expert witness in a famous court case about click fraud, and has been quoted widely (example). She was also one of the founders of SEMPO. It is possible to dig up sources and create an article about the subject. Jehochman Talk 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
verification So, post the specific references here so we can evaluate the depth of coverage, reliability of sources and that she is not notable mainly because of one event as a one time coverage as a witness in a court case. We should also see if she passes the Pokemon test which means to demonstrate she's keep worthy than each Pokemon. At one point, each pokemon characters had a stand alone article, but most of them have been merged into a "pokemon characters" page. The argument should support why Stricchiola should get a stand-alone page rather than a section in a page about SEO/SEM contractors or webmasters. As another administrator have pointed out to you on your poorly supported argument, instead of a arbitrary reference and a search query, you must list them explicitly so that other participants can evaluate them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the consensus and our rule has long been that being interviewed, while not dispositive of general notability nor a secondary source, can be evidence of notability. LibStar misstated the rules, probably by being succinct. Now, the autobio and COI issues must be resolved, but I don't think they're fatal issues. Many Wikipedians are trying to be more female-friendly, and this is one that might be kept with that in mind as well. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can at least resist the temptation to only write biographies about powerful white men. Jehochman Talk 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gender is not relevant. Being "female-friendly" does not mean giving more lenient inclusion requirements for subjects of biography who happens to be female. Jehochman, that comment you added was disruptive and does not add anything to the discussion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is entirely relevant, and that word disruptive probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Those who prefer to cite dusty books and paper newspapers instead of more modern sources when writing about technology are consequentially importing the biases of those sources into Wikipedia. Those biases generally run in favor of the Western, white, heterosexual, powerful males (aka Patriarchy). Jehochman Talk 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument elsewhere was the accusation that my nominations are based on "dislike for SEO producers" and here you built your personal accusation claim to sexism, perhaps because you're unable to locate reliable sources for subjects of your interest. Your participating as on one of those SEO producers is consequentially importing biases of crummy self published pages, authors citing eachothers page and such. I never stated "dusty books" are preferable. It's a matter of contents check through editorial control. On a blog page that your SEO friend is running or on your own page, you can claim yourself as a highly experience(in your opinion), intelligent, prominent, world famous, (and other positive pufferies) search engine optimization professional. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 03:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you account for the numerous citations and widespread coverage in the literature? http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jessie+Stricchiola%22 What evidence do you have to support your opinion? Did you look for sources, or did you just shoot from the hip? Jehochman Talk 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a counting exercise; please read Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly WP:CREATIVE. What I see in the Google Book search you cited is a bunch of SEO people quoting each other. I do not see how this makes any of them notable. What I do not see is: Any biography, any well-known and significant award or honor, any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record, more than a few citings (not quotes) by peers or successors, any significant new concept, theory or technique. Yes, I looked for sources but found mostly self-promoting fluff. HairyWombat 15:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look for astrophysics references, you will find a bunch of astrophysicists quoting each other, which is perfectly normal for any esoteric topic. What you are lacking is the subject area knowledge to distinguish which parties and which sources are reliable and notable. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I look for astrophysics references, what I will find is a bunch of astrophysicists citing each others research papers that have been published in mainstream refereed journals. And the vast majority of these astrophysics will still not be notable. The part that user Jehochman seems to be missing is that to be notable, a person must have achieved something notable. This is why the guidelines speak of awards, honours, and contributions to the enduring historical record. HairyWombat 03:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HW, "awards, honour, and contributions to the historical record' do prove notability , but they only apply to the very most notable--the great majority of notable individuals achieve much less than that. What you're asking for is better called "famous', and that's the standard appropriate only to an abridged encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by several good references. There may be some promo here but that can be corrected through edits. --Kvng (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Search Engine Optimization is an important web development topic, this woman wrote a good book on the subject, and her notability is demonstrated by the references now added to the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of lack of objective notability. The most specific achievement, the book, is not remotely notable: WorldCat shows only 12 holding libraries. [3]. Even if this is a book not primarily purchased by libraries, libraries do buy books on this subject, and 12 is a trivially low number. President of a national organization is an indication of notability ; not so a seat of the board of directors. As for the comparison with astrophysicists, they cite each other in peer-reviewed edited publications--we've never counted conference presentations as publications that imply any degree of notability, and they, sensibly, don't count them as such for promotion either. We are not irrationally skeptical of articles by SEOs about SEOs: the strong likelihood of promotionalism is confirmed by such language as "an original co-founder ", "numerous conferences" , "published author" "some examples of " (my italics) . And, to cvap it off, she is only mentioned, not "featured " in The Google Story -- her name appears on only 2 of the 317 pages. Perhaps thearticle could be rewritten if someone can find real references, but the way to do it would be to start over. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, sourced, its a small biography, expand and rewrite and this could be an acceptable artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD was not transcluded in the logs. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first source mentions her once in listing the members of a board; this is not about her and does not provide notability. The second is not strictly about Stricchiola; however, it cites her opinion a lot, it calls her a "leading expert" and tracks a lot of her experiences. This seems to provide notability for me. The third only mentions Stricchiola twice, seemingly in passing. Source four is not about Stricchiola and, unlike source two, only briefly looks at her opinion. I don't think this quite established notability. Source five, as with four, is not about Stricchiola. Source six is as per four & five. Source seven seems to be an interview with Stricchiola - that in itself does not really establish notability. All but one of the sources are insufficient at establishing notability. Though one does seem more robust, it is not really enough on its own - the source is not even about Stricchiola. Thus, delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need to discount the number of Google hits we get for this person, as we would for anyone in the SEO field. Their job is to generate a lot of Google hits for a name, so it's not surprising that there might be a lot of Google hits for their own names. The Google Story, in which the subject is mentioned twice, did not win a Pulitzer Prize. Rather, one of its two authors won a Pulitzer for unrelated newspaper articles, five years before Google ever started. Finally, the issues of sexism and systemic bias are irrelevant here. I'm skeptical of the notability of male SEO consultants as much as that of female SEO consultants. In fact, far from being a field in which Wikipedia normally limits its coverage to males, Category:Search engine optimization consultants actually includes equal numbers of men and women (four of each). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Stricchiola&oldid=1068866767"