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 delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Csutoras

[edit]
Brent Csutoras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable person. Article is written by it's subject. Although his name pulls up quite a few google searches (and I don't have time to go through all of them) a lot of them don't seem to be that notable. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look.. If you guys want to delete this page, then be my guest.. It serves no purpose other than existing.

I mentioned over and over that the article was sent to me when the author didn't want to register with Wikipedia to make the page. I cut the article down and spent a few hours looking at numerous other people profile pages on Wikipedia, and there are hundreds if not thousands.

I followed every rule and example out there to make it work compared to the original version, which had too many out links and no references.

Someone mentioned SEO and it being a reason for instant guilt. If you want to hate on SEOs fine, but at least understand what it is before throwing it out there. Wikipedia nofollows their links, which means it has no SEO value AT ALL... It has spam value to people who dont rank or have legit pages, like selling insurance leads but search engines are not even going to rank Wikipedia over the source .com site.

I followed your rules to try to make the page better and less spammy and you all give me total crap for it. I only played along this long to get enough documentation to do a good blog post about it.

Delete this page if you like but it follows all your rules and examples and is no different than anyone on this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_bloggers. Half the people on that page have almost no references and no standing other than owning a blog.

So if following your rules and spending hours to make sure it works the way it should is not what you want then i can do no more.

I don't know what standards you have for notable but if you review the individuals pages on half the marketers, bloggers, and technology figures on Wikipedia.. half dont have references from sources like Forbes, Entrepreneur, or speaker credentials at all the top conferences.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Csutoras (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oops forgot to vote. Delete per my rationale above and WP:VSCA Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote the article and think it is deserved and properly placed in wiki.. just cause your admin dont know people who are someone within an industry doesn't mean they are not.. It means you cannot know everything and thus should not allow a small handful of people make the decision on who is popular or known to them.

You cannot read a conversation today about social media without seeing Brent's name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Muimui69 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 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.
More