Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Schwartz (technologist) (2nd nomination)

Barry Schwartz (technologist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't look to be passing WP:GNG There is not enough significant coverage in multiple independent sources to justify stand alone encyclopedia article on this person. Those who said "notable keep" in prior nomination did not backup how the person is notable after four years Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Based on text of article, ability to establish such appears unlikely. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do the research. The page was originally created by User:Rustybrick. Seach the internet for Rusty Brick and Barry. He owns the company. WP:promotion. WP:POV

Comment Yes, this goes way back. Anyway, Here are some sources for notability, if you need it... Interviewed by Brian Williams on Prime Time NBC, see here. Article about myself in Journal News, see here. I've been quoted hundreds of times by places like WSJ, NY Times, Forbes, and so many more. Here are some links to those, but I stopped keeping track. I cover SEO and search news, I am a publisher. I am one of the most cited journalists in the search space. I've spoken around the world, including Search Marketing Expo, PubCon, La Red Innova and so on. I also run conferences, here is an article for a very large Israel paper on a conference I ran there, there are others but they are in Hebrew. But you guys can do your independent research. I am pretty sure you don't want to hear from me on this. But wanted to just add some of these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustybrick (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is another attempt to increase traffic to your website. All but one source you provided are to your OWN website, which is setup to sell yourself, no surprise. Citation should be as close to the source as possible and this looks like an attempt by the subject to protect their own presence on wiki. Verification on MSN failed. The video was about space exploration. It did not mention you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the links nofollowed. I do not care about the links. Maybe NBC moved the video, here is a copy of it on YouTube. And here is a citation in a book, one of many. Should I stop providing sources and let others? What is protocol? Rustybrick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
More books, Art of SEO, Killer Facebook Ads, Google AdWords, etc. Leading paper in Spain, over here. Rustybrick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I do not believe getting cited in eachother's book counts, which is apparently happening commonly in the world of "SEO specialists". You could publish a book and briefly mention the author that mentioned you as a gratitude and it still doesn't establish your notability. The links are no follow, but it still brings visits, just not tracked back to wikipedia.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like you dislike me for some reason. Did you spend any time at all looking to see my contributions to the search industry, not just "SEO" but to Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. This seems more personal to me than anything else, maybe I am just taking this the wrong way. But there are very few people in the search industry, specifically journalists, that have given as much time, content and information to the industry. Please just spend time researching my background, contributions, mentions and so on, instead of assuming this is about getting traffic, because I can prove it is not about the traffic. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm looking for same level of coverage as well known to the public figures who usually have coverage about them and justifiably so. In prior deletions, consensus was that snippets of mentions is not a "significant coverage". The media approaches those who work in the field all the time. If they're doing issues on earthquake, they may ask a professor at a nearby school for a comment and may get mentioned as "Dr. Jane Doe of department of geology at State University said" but that is a trivial mention. As per WP:GNG WP:BASIC coverage should not be trivial. If we didn't have these limitations, wiki will become flooded with people wanting their own stand alone article. You may be a snippet in another article, but the amount and reliability of information I can locate on you does not warrant stand alone article on you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Does not seem to clearly meet the general notability guideline. There are sources, but most of them don't really seem to be about the subject directly and substantially. Steven Walling • talk 22:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

followup that is what I was seeing. When I went through the sources he linked as well as those I verified independently, there was substantial coverage of the subject. Bloggers, SEO consultants and such emphasize on their presence on websites, but as you probably seen their presence is particularly polished on primary source blogs.

Keep Being routinely interviewed as the expert on something by reliable sources can amount to notability as a recognized expert or authority. Obviously we are rather skeptical about this in borderline cases, but I don't think this is borderline. I accept also that we should be especially skeptical about articles about themselves by experts in internet marketing, but I think he passes none the less. The decisive factor for me is the editorship of Search engine watch. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply and that page is a publication designed specifically for search engine marketers. That publication has got a page on how to spam on Wikipedia by How Small Businesses Can Get a Link from WikipediaYou get a general idea of the market it supports and it makes the WP:COI pretty obvious that advise it gives about Wikipedia editing isn't without commercial motive behind it, such as clever, concealed placement of WP:REFSPAM. So we've seen self statement of "routinely interviewed by experts" a whole bunch of links within his *own* website, but not multiple, unrelated, WP:RS with significant coverage. Have you seen otherwise??? Would you find editorial from Kate Kaye from industry advocating publication ClickZ to clear WP:V, and WP:POV? Even on technology issues, I don't see these small publishers to be on the same level as Reuters, TechCrunch, wiredCantaloupe2 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ClickZ didn't return a significant presence on Hoovers search. On ClickZ page, it looks like it is owned by the same company as Search engine watch, so it looks like the two are not two unique independent sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not been with Search Engine Watch for years and even so, what does that article have to do with my writings. I cover search news, not how to spam, and do black hat SEO. I cover news on search, nothing to do with abuse. (talk)