Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Schwartz (technologist): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:04, 5 January 2007

Barry Schwartz (technologist)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:BIO. Notability is limited to CEO of a non-notable company and "the first to propose via a search engine". ju66l3r 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Want to comment directly about notability here. I would hope my notability is directly related to my work at Search Engine Roundtable, Search Engine Land, Search Engine Watch, the various conferences I speak at, the fact that Yahoo, Google, Ask, and MSN have me on their advisory councils, fly me to meetings, and request that I speak at their offices. Plus being called by NY Times, WSJ and other notable papers for quotes, does matter, no? Rustybrick 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see sources below. I will dig up more.
OK, some more sources, quoted in News.com and Publish.com and many other high end sources, Ill keep adding. Rustybrick 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search Engine Roundtable, Search Engine Land and Search Engine Watch are the sites I write or wrote at and they are one of the very few search news sites that are included in Google and Yahoo News engines. Rustybrick 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creating editor is also in conflict of interest as the subject of the article, which is suggested by this diff. ju66l3r 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other than Danny Sullivan, Barry is probably the most prominent, well-known figure in SEO. He is / has been associated with all the major forums, blogs, conferences & associations in the industry. He chronicles the everchanging world of SEO like no other and has been doing so for a long time.Pryzbilla

I didn't know I wasn't able to vouch for Ben, I wasn't aware of the conflict of interest, I am sorry. Rustybrick 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. The CoI is that you started the article about yourself, not that you commented on the Ben Pfeiffer article. Hope that clears it up. WP requires neutrality in content and the fact that you started a biographical article about yourself makes it nearly impossible for other editors to seperate the two. ju66l3r 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, not sure what to do now about it... I am sorry... Rustybrick 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since every claim in the article can be factually verified, perhaps it is possible to overlook this indescretion? Caydel 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vouch for Barry's value to the search engine community. He provides more information to the industry as a whole, is pretty much the unofficial news source for the entire Search community. He deserves an entry in Wikipedia just as much as Danny Sullivan or Matt Cutts. He is without a doubt one of the most influential people withing the search sphere. Caydel 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be kept. Mr. Schwartz is a leader in the field of SEO and should be recognized as such via this wiki. Gbatesy 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Barry Schwartz is by far one of the most recognized names in the SEO Industry. Being an SEO, if I were asked who should one talk to about anything that is going on in the SEO industry? I would point to Danny Sullivan and then immediately to Barry Schwartz. He is widely revered as a person on the pulse of this industry and deserves to be recognized as such especially, here, on Wikipedia. --Griffingranberg 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Comment: Please be sure to discuss this issue in terms of whether the article and/or subject of the article meets WP:BIO guidelines for notability and furhtermore WP:V for verifiability by reliable sources. All of the heartfelt back-patting aside, it is the guidelines of this site that define whether an article is warranted and not a popular vote. Thanks. ju66l3r 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G11 (Blatant Advertising). It's a bit obvious that User:Rustybrick is Barry Schwartz, given that the website linked as Barry Schwartz's is called the exact same thing. Lankybugger 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (changed to Tentative Keep per new information which has been provided, assuming that Clickz and Web Pro News are considered reliable sources. First glance says yes. Lankybugger 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lankybugger: I don't think he was trying to hide it, nor promote himself. Also, Rustybrick's comment above refers to the athor as 'I' implying that he is Barry Schwartz.Caydel 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it civil, eh Caydel? I'm stating my own reason for the nom, and the information wasn't there when I was working on my message. And while he's not trying to hide it, he certainly IS trying to promote himself with this article, especially given the fact he's soliciting votes. Lankybugger 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has been cleaned up Caydel 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that Mr Schwartz is actively soliciting "votes" on his blog. Tevildo 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily true - Nowhere on his blog did Barry solicit 'votes' for this article. In fact, he doesn't even mention the conflict in the talk pages. Caydel 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do your research, if you think the page should not be there, then delete it... Rustybrick 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barry Schwartz is a famous name in the industry, a speaker at conferences such as SES, and actively quoted in outside sources. I would like to know the other editor's background in the search industry, that they feel confident assessing the importance of Barry's work to the search industry. While Barry may have made a mistake writing the article himself, I was more surprised that there hadn't been one already.Caydel 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me add that all my articles, be it on Search Engine Roundtable and Search Engine Land (also in the past Search Engine Watch) are included in both Google News and Yahoo News engines. Google and Yahoo both have very strict guidelines on which sources they allow in. Please feel free to verify that. Rustybrick 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to show the notability of the subject. Edison 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources does one need? Here are several and I'll list them again. News.com, Publish.com, Web Pro News Interview & quoted several dozen times by Web Pro News, ClickZ, Search Engine Watch about my position there, ZDNet.com, EConsultancy.com and many more. 216.254.94.2 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the listed awards my search news site has won over the years from credible sources such as MarketingSherpa Readers' Choice Best Blog Awards for 2006 and for 2006 and Search Engine Journal best Search Marketing Blog for 2005 and for 2006. Rustybrick 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that you guys want the article to cite these sources? If so, I added some of them, Ill add more as I go. Please confirm... Rustybrick 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are good. Just remember that you have to be the focus of the article for it to count as a source about you. The news.com article mentions you briefly as a quote (which wouldn't really count). You're referred to as "a commentator" in the Publish.com article (which means it DEFINATELY doesn't count). The Web Pro News articles could probably be used as a source, and the Clickz.com article might work too (I suggest you check out WP:SOURCE for more about properly sourcing an article). The Ziff Davis news wouldn't work as it's focus is on the AdWords program, and neither would the E-consultancy.com article. I hope that helps clarify things. Lankybugger 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am understanding now. Can I call it a night and fix up the article tomorrow? I want to read up more on the WP:SOURCE and then do a good job with the article... Thanks for explaining this! Rustybrick 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD doesn't close until the 9th of January. You've got a fair amount of time. Lankybugger 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it looking any better? I think I am on the right track... Rustybrick 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rustybrick (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and start again with no involvement whatsoever fomr the subject. And yes we all know what SEO is about and what expertise in SEO is likely to do for the Google rating of this subject. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um did you look at the discussion above? FYI, I do not sell SEO services... I just report on the SEM/SEO industry. Rustybrick 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, completely Barry is noteworthy, but I regret that he started the article before other editors had a chance to write one. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of editing, but the article is still a mess. The list of references was terrible. Many didn't even mention the subject and some had just a short quotation of the subject, which isn't useful. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Can I call it a night and fix up the article tomorrow?" -- Answer: Barry, you don't own this article. Your absolute best course of action is to step back and let the community fix the article.Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I won't argue, you seem to have a nice history here, so I will step back as you said. Rustybrick 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing wrong with him starting an article about himself, even though some consider this a bad habit. Barry is one of the more important people in the SEO world and deserve his page here. The article could use some work perhaps, but I think it should be kept. --Jdevalk 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 : I've done a lot of editing, but the article is still a mess.  The list of references was terrible.  Many didn't even mention the subject and some had just a short quotation of the subject, which isn't useful. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 : "Can I call it a night and fix up the article tomorrow?"  -- Answer:  Barry, you don't own this article.  Your absolute best course of action is to step back and let the community fix the article.[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
+::* Jehochman, I won't argue, you seem to have a nice history here, so I will step back as you said. [[User:Rustybrick|Rustybrick]] 11:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' There's nothing wrong with him starting an article about himself, even though some consider this a bad habit. Barry is one of the more important people in the SEO world and deserve his page here. The article could use some work perhaps, but I think it should be kept. --[[User:Jdevalk|Jdevalk]] 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)