Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Danny Sullivan (technologist) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Instinct (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 6 March 2008 (→Danny Sullivan (technologist): close as keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:45, 6 March 2008 by Instinct (talk | contribs) (→Danny Sullivan (technologist): close as keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Danny Sullivan (technologist)

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.
Danny Sullivan (technologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm not convinced this person is notable enough for inclusion. Many references are given but most are not reliable and some do not mention the subject. MSGJ (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep the USA Today article about Sullivan - in which Google's Matt Cutts describes Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website as "must reading." and Yahoo's Tim Mayer says it the "most authoritative source on search." - alone shows notability. In addition he founded the two major Search Conferences (SMX and SES) and is widely quoted as the major independent commentator on search engines. I'd say he qualifies. Gwernol 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also see the extensive list of sources provided at Talk:Danny Sullivan (technologist) which include The Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the BBC, the San Francisco Chronicle etc. The article should definitely be improved, but I don't see much doubt that there should be an article on Sullivan. Gwernol 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I also suggest we close this per WP:SNOW. --ZimZalaBim 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I had closed the AfD per SNOW, but have no re-opened it, since it was disputed whether I should close it after participating. --ZimZalaBim 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, while the article could be better written, this story from the New York Times in 2000 demonstrates notability. Jehochman 20:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the current version of the article doesn't clearly specify his notability in the lead, but he had been profiled by USA Today and had been extensively quoted by the press on all matters relating to search engines. See the article's talk page for a list of links. DHN (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is currently a bit spammy/POV, but that can be fixed. Most of the redlinks should point back to this article if they're needed at all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The guy is totally legit and known throughout his industry. He is a pioneer in his field. He belongs in Misplaced Pages. -- | Talk 21:35, 5 March 2008 (GMT)
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.