Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Jurina

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 both for the time being. All claims to notability in both articles are local (local awards and recognition). Perhaps, with more time, there will be more significant notability to document in an article on either the company or its founder. Pastordavid (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Jurina

A non-notable expert in the field of "online marketing and internet market research." The article says that the subject won a small business award, is a public speaker and does volunteer work. None of these things are particularly notable. The article reads like a resume/self-promotional effort. Watchsmart (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to both of the above nominations Ken Jurina is a notable expert in the field of search engine optimizaion and internet market research. He is requested to speak at every major industry related conference, has (in conjunction with his business partner) pioneered and developed an entirely unique keyword and market research software - so much so that a number of very big brand names in the search sphere have offered to buy Epiar - the company. He is as notable in his specific field as Jill Whalen or any other well known SEO specialists and experts. It would be irresponsible not to include at the very least an entry on the company Epiar if you do wish to remove the personal entry on Ken himself. Lmac-74 —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — Lmac-74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Changes needed - Epiar is a fairly notable company in the SEO market, of which Ken Jurina is the president. It does, however, need a re-write without the uppity bias, as well as some decent references (google has a zillion pages of Ken Jurina results, I'm sure there are some). Ringo380 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Advice gratefully received - I'm sorry about the uppity bias - I'll try to tone it down (without pushing the envelope here - can you give me an example of uppity? No offence taken if its just that my writing style sucks in general.) - I will also go through the google results. Lmac-74 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Watchsmart and Ringo380 - I've made a few changes. Your input is invaluable to retaining this page, and you both obviously have far more experience than I do. Any fedback gratefully received/ Lmac-74 (talk) 3:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I fail to see the notability here. The article points out the following facts about Jurina: He founded Epiar, he is a public speaker and that he is involved in some trade organizations. What is notable about these things? That he has some "associates" in the same field is not notable either. His company is not notable either. The article states that it has developed "proprietary software." So what? Are there are any media references to the software outside of SEO trade publications? The only media coverage you cite is a single article from SEOMoz Watchsmart (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had problems with assessing the notability of SEO people before -- sometimes it's tricky for non-SEO types to assess the reliability of sources and sort the sheep from the goats. Likewise some SEO industry folks come to AfDs and say that "everybody knows Billy Bob" and "he's been blogged about a zillion times" -- not knowing our requirements for notability. Many of our editors that work in SEO have our Search engine optimisation article on their watchlist so I have left a neutrally-worded notice of this AfD at Talk:Search engine optimization. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to form one article, and pluck all the peacock feathers and advertising language. Investigate whether Lmac-74 has a conflict of interest in this matter, and if so, provide clues to that user. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But are there any reliable sources for these guys that satisfy our notability guidelines? If not, we should delete, not merge.
See also this article, Keyword Research, which while it covers a notable topic has recently been Epiar-ized by a single purpose editor. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both After fifteen minutes of searching, I can find nothing to demonstrate notability. Searching for "Epiar" gives me more results for a game than this company, and searching for "Epiar marketing" just gives me business/telephone listings. Maybe when this company has achieved something more notable the article can be recreated, but right now neither the founder or the company have done anything to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The SEO community might be insular, but there are still standards for notability, and these subjects appear to fail. Cool Hand Luke 10:18, 23 December 2007 (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.