The result was Delete. I give high marks to both User:channelvmedia and User:Travellingcari for their extensive interest in this article, their remaining civil throughout, and detailed reasonings. However, the subject of the article, I agree, does not meet our notability criteria. If anyone in this debate would like a copy of the deleted material to continue work in userspace, ask me on my talkpage. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I debated on this one for a while as I'd tagged and watched it even before the creator reverted my tagging and added fluff. There's some substantial COI issues, but also nothing to assert notability to enable fixing of the COI issues. Fails WP:BIO quite substantially. Travellingcari (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a conflict of interest?? I added proper references, not "fluff." Instead of deleting, give me advice. And how is my username "dubious"? Channelvmedia (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Channelvmedia[reply]
Comment I still question whether the references, thank you for adding those by the way, meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources. Especially the last, which is a blog. The first, seems to be little more than a press release. If he were more notable, I believe he'd garner more press in Reliable Sources. The reason I brought it here for discussion was exactly that, a desire to discuss whether it meets the standards. That's what this is. Travellingcari (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm trying to track down better sources for him. He's been written up in more reliable sources, just having trouuble finding them... Thanks, channelv
Comment Okay, making progress. If you have any feedback/advice for me, please let me know! Thanks again, channelv —Preceding comment was added at 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added several citations and they've all been deleted. May I ask why? I would love to resolve every issue with this page today. If you could offer your suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. Another option would be for me to work on this in the Sandbox (which I wish I would have done initially). Is it possible for me to take this down at this point and work on it there until it's ready to be posted? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commentt Also, if you could help me eliminate anything that comes off as a conflict of interest, I would be happy to comply. Joe Pulizzi is truly an expert on the growing field of content marketing and I would love to add him to Wikipedia, as he's a great reference on the subject. However, I don't want it to be biased and will certainly do it in the best interest of the community. Please help. Thanks again for all, Channelv. —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Channel: I believe that autobot edits such as this one are due to the addition of links that may be on the spam list. I'm trying to find confirmation of that, has to do with reliable sources and such, i.e. blogspot, which are sometimes added to the article as spam. I think your intentions are good, there's nothing that prevents an article from being re-created once improved. At this point there's no consensus to delete, it's a discussion. I hope others will join in. Be back in a bit when I can find the info on the bot's actions. Travellingcari (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Response: ok found the info quicker than I thought. The link shows frequent reversions, and the bot also left a comment on your talk page. It has a lot to do with reliable sources, especially the information on self published sources, as is the issue with lulu (his book) and the blogs. Also when looking at whether Pulizzi meets the notability standards, it's good to look at Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria, which is not policy but rather a consensus established. I'm not sure whether he meets that criteria, but I wouldn't say that he definitely doesn't. Hope that has helped some. Feel free to ask if you'd like more information. Travellingcari (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. I didn't realize the book was self-published, so I'll get that out of there (unless I can keep it in there without adding an external link?). I'm going to play with the rest of it now. Is there anyway to get this offline until it's perfect? Joe Pulizzi doesn't need to endure the embarrassment because of my mistakes. Also, do you think that adding his upcoming speaking engagements looks too much like a sales pitch? I haven't heard anything either way on those, but thought they might inhibit me. Please let me know your thoughts. His bio is part of a larger network of entries I'd like to add about the custom content industry. I wish I had known all of the rules before posting but this is definitely a good crash course for my entries going forward. Next time I'll be more thorough in reading the guidelines. Best, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response No worries. I've asked another editor who recently stepped into the article to come lend a hand here to see if he can sort some of the reversions that are making your head spin (and mine too every time it shows on my watchlist). I don't know whether that would seem like a sales pitch or not. My question lies more on whether someone would come to wikipedia to look up information on Pulizzi, i.e. whether the content is encyclopedic. As I learnt from someone else, you can use ((db-author)) to have it speedily deleted, but I don't know policy when it comes to something that's already here. Travellingcari (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I definitely believe that people will come to look up Joe. He just started a business bookmarking site that is completely revolutionary in our industry, and people will certainly want to find out more about him. The problem with his past experience and positions is that his companies and publications were the focus of many articles, but he wasn't always necessarily directly credited. That's where there's a disconnect. Obviously you can't take my word for it--that's what the references are for--but he is a dynamic figure/leader in the content marketing industry, which itself is just now becoming a buzzword (hence my wanting to get it on the radar before anyone else). I just want to perfect this one before I attempt to start another article. Back to the ol' drawing board! Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I guess i'm a bit confused by the fact that people like David Meerman Scott offer no citations for any of their claims, and have similar articles to what I'm trying to add. This seems like a disconnect. They are in the same industry, have similar backgrounds, but one is acceptable and one is not. Do you know why that is? Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just read "other stuff" and it makes sense--I wasn't saying one should exist b/c another does, just wondering why mine was getting pounded. But yes, the article certainly explained that, so thank you. [I'm learning so much, actually]. My next and close to final question, then, is: What exactly do I need to provide at this point to get this article up today? If I can delete some claims until I can offer citations, I would be open to that. I could even get rid of half of the stuff on there if needed, but I want to make this article as valid as possible and remove it from discussion. Is that going to be possible? Thank you again and again, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I get more involved in this process, I understand why you're monitoring this so closely--so, no worries (and even more appropriately--thank you). I just went in and marked those things that need better citations as stubs, as well as marking the entire article a stub. That said; is this article getting closer to complying? I will updated it frequently as more reliable sources become available. Please let me know your thoughts or if you have any further suggestions to improve the article. Thank you, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've done a very good job cleaning up this page. I just did a minor clean up for formatting issues and the fact that I didn't explain the stub tags very well, but I agree with your changes in that respect. One issue that I'm still having with this article, I see you list "How to Profit from a Custom Publishing Strategy" as something he's done and you may be right but there appears to be no way to verify this. Have his engagements received mention elsewhere that I wouldn't know to search? Travellingcari (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like you guys have your minds made up. I don't know that seeing Joe as an expert in his field is a conflict of interest, but okay... Nevertheless, I found quite a few reliable references and have added them. Thanks, channelv —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with this discussion, the COI is blatantly evident. The notability is not. If it gets relisted, we'll see what happens but this entire "novel" is essentially a back and forth. Creator did her best to create a good article from a marginally notable, at best, subject. Travellingcari (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page will be up until an admin decides to close the discussion. It's conflict of interest because you're close to the subject and have a vested interest in getting him mentioned here. You can't be objective. There's still a lot of unencyclopedic content (personal life, a future self published book) and it's unclear whether he's notable. Someone objective will decide that -- we're all allowed to have an opinion and saying that those who disagree have a 'biased grudge' doesn't help. Travellingcari (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd note you acknowledge in the article that he was involved with B2B magazine, therefore an article from that magazine, several of which were used as sources, is not going to meet RS because it's not independent of the source. You're trying and I get that -- but it may just be that there isn't enough independent and verifiable material on him. Travellingcari (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are two magazines, B2B magazine and B2B Marketing Trends (the latter is the one with which he was involved). I removed those two references (good point). I removed his personal life section and mention of his book. I also removed his upcoming and past speaking engagements to avoide "looking like a resume." I've done what all that i can to comply, and I think it could be argued that anyone who posts something has an interest in getting it published--I won't agree that my interest is vested though, but I see why there might be speculation. ChannelV —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]