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 14:22, 9 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~~ continue editing. 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]

BTW, for those not involved in the field of Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Marketing, it might be harder to distinguish if Barry is notable. As an SEO I can tell you that he IS notable, having been one of the primary editors of Search Engine Watch, and now Search Engine Land, the leading news sites on Search Marketing. Lots and lots and lots of SEO's will confirm for you that his doings are indeed a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." --Jdevalk 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the "word" of everyone in the field isn't what is required to meet the WP:BIO guidelines for notability. Everyone in the world of widgets may know my uncle as the best widget seller this side of the Atlantic, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for an article de facto. We need reliable sourcing and independent assertion of notability in order to satisfy the existence of the article. And there is something wrong with starting an article about yourself, please read WP:COI. ju66l3r 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:COI full well, that doesn't force me to agree with it though, but that's another point of discussion. In earlier versions of this article Barry put some references that were good, I think, but removed in the process. However, if you look at what's there now, you will see that those are reliable sources. WP:BIO has very good guidelines, and MY opinion is that this page should be kept because of those, in reference of the following quote: This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. My $0.02. --Jdevalk 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Note worthy individual. Properly documented. Watch and make sure it remains objective if edited by the actual person. --71Demon 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but take points off for creating his own article). Notable. --A. B. ^(talk) 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :) --Jdevalk 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barry is a noteworthy individual in the field of SEO. Ifenn 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Keep This is the domain expert issue. It's like Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.". He passes this test, based on independent sources cited above. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when even those wanting to delete say the person is notable but not quite notable enough, they are not following the spirit of the guidelines. If the person is notable enough that everyone says he is, this is surely the intent.DGG 04:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When the major contributor is the subject of the article and then he further solicits help through his personal blog (see above) and a second blog solicits help for SEO AfDs, calling me (as the AfD submitter) a vandal...well, "everyone says" acts more as a vote and not a discussion which is not the point of AfD. Notability is not subjective and the article (as acknowledged by other editors above) was poorly written and likely did not meet the criteria when I submitted it for AfD. The intent is to have the verifiabililty necessary in the form of reliably sourced proof of notability and not to poll the audience to see enough colleagues will vouch for the subject's notability or not. This article has been improved and the closing administrator may see that WP:BIO has finally been met. For an example, it would be useless to have the criteria if I could create an article about myself and then ask fellow bioinformaticists who read my blog to come and say "Aw, come on, he's notable...let it go!" and satisfy the guidelines in doing so. ju66l3r 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no influence on the "second blog" and I never solicited votes, I just informed people I made a wiki entry for myself. I later found out that was frowned on. And based on the recommendations above, I did not make any changes to the rewritten wiki entry. Rustybrick 09:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to suggest that you had influence on the other blog. I was only intending to point out that because we can't always control what people will do outside of wikipedia, we need to follow the guidelines and policies that are put in place to establish neutrality and notability for each article on its own. Also, we must do so in discussion of whether the article fits policy and guidelines and not as votes of confidence for the subject matter for conditions such as notability. Argue to the facts of the article and whether they meet specific criteria, not to emotion or (not-so-)common sense and subjectivities. ju66l3r 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your comments on this and other articles have been very helpful towards improving them, which is the point of all this. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Jehochman, I have learned a ton... Rustybrick 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 :::* I did not intend to suggest that you had influence on the other blog.  I was only intending to point out that because we can't always control what people will do outside of wikipedia, we need to follow the guidelines and policies that are put in place to establish neutrality and notability for each article on its own.  Also, we must do so in discussion of whether the article fits policy and guidelines and not as votes of confidence for the subject matter for conditions such as notability.  Argue to the facts of the article and whether they meet specific criteria, not to emotion or (not-so-)common sense and subjectivities.  [[User:Ju66l3r|ju66l3r]] 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 ::::* Agreed. Your comments on this and other articles have been very helpful towards improving them, which is the point of all this.  [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
+:::::* I second Jehochman, I have learned a ton... [[User:Rustybrick|Rustybrick]] 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)