Talk:Barry Schwartz (technologist)/Archives/2013

talk
Great idea to make a Barry Schwartz page. His contributions to the search community are constant and outstanding! Caydel 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Barry is one of the top industry figures in the search engine marketing industry and his contributions have been instrumental to our knowledge and understanding of how search engines work.Orioncountry 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gushing praise isn't the basis for having a Wikipedia article. This isn't an award based on merit. To have an article, the subject must be notable. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Barry's contributions to the SEO Industry make him extremely worthy of a Wikipedia page. Other than Danny Sullivan, Barry is the most noteworthy (and known) person and contributor to the industry. Pryzbilla

Barry's a smart guy, a very hard worker, and something of a "celebrity" in his particular field. However, he will probably benefit from the added humility that will come from not being the first in his group to merit a wikipedia mini-bio.SynonymousEconomist 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at who created the page. With someone named RustyBrick starting the article, I'm fairly certian this is an autobiography started by none other than himself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article subsequently went through AfD and was cleaned up. I recommend focusing on the notability or lack of notability as it currently stands.  In those days Wikipedia had a much more inclusionist leaning than it does today, especially with respect to biographies. Jehochman Talk 00:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is not much difference in advertising tone. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the tone could be improved, but it is not currently in the form written by him, nor has it been for about four years. Your tag is essentially a slander against a living person.  You are asserting something that is both negative and false.  I wish you would be more thoughtful. Jehochman Talk 22:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Rustybrick acknowledges he is the subject of this topic. Looking at contribution history, he started the page, he's got the second most edit, only after you so I don't think there's any question that he's extensively edited. You reverted my edits twice, I edited twice, although we have both done so with comments. You leaving a warning on my page was simply retaliation. Again you make another groundless accusation. Do you really believe adding a tag "autobiography" is "slander"(which by the way means defamation in spoken form)...?  It isn't hard to establish the subject started the topic and that he extensively edited it especially since he admits to it.  You've got to be kidding.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are defaming Rustybrick, not slandering him. Does that make your action acceptable?  The article as it currently stands was not written by him.  Maintenance tags are not to used as scarlet letters. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Gary Stock, CEO of Nexcerpt. http://www.nexcerpt.com/ I haven't commented on Wikipedia for years, so I apologize for any inconsistent tagging. I've been studying and building online search tools since 1996. I met all the notables at tech conferences back then, as the "search engine industry" was first defining itself. I don't know Barry Schwartz personally, because he wasn't involved then -- but he's a notable figure today. Wikipedia obviously needs to cover Danny Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Sullivan_%28technologist%29). After Danny, it's a tie for second between Barry and a few other names. In fact, Barry now works with Danny, doing the very job Danny did in establishing standards for search news reporting years ago. I'd encourage the editors here to set aside some of the conflict apparent in the exchanges above, and choose wisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstock (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gary Stock, if Wikipedia has a page on Danny Sullivan then Barry Schwartz deserves one as well as several others in this field. I've personally known Barry for about 8 years having met him at a search conference where he was covering the event as a reporter. He has worked hard at covering all aspects of the search marketing industry for a number of years and is well respected by everyone involved in this industry. His involvement goes beyond merely reporting on events, his opinion and insights matter which is reflected by a large volume of TV interviews he's given and the numerous times he's been quoted in a variety of both online and offline publications. I've just added a handful of the ones I found by doing a quick search on his name. I hope this endless bickering of this profile ends. I believe that this all stems from Barry creating the original entry, which has been edited by others and yes by Rustybrick itself. Editing your own profile is a must to ensure accuracy of facts and ensure falsehoods are deleted. Politicians and celebrates alike do this while they may not do it personally they do hire firms to manage this process. So why should Barry be punished simply because he has the wherewithal to do it himself or have one of his staff take care of it.Kology 17:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kology (talk • contribs)
 * The result was a weak lean towards keep and was not a strong case. The existence of other internet personnel is not a rationale for adding more. This essay explains the idea well and provides a good argument: WP:INN. Wiki article does not go through a peer review before article gets published and not every one of them get a thorough review right away.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been in this industry for 5 years, Sorry Barry is a rock solid information source in the search marketing business. Danny & Barry are the Gatekeepers for search engine marketing. So what if he edits his own stuff (Wiki Page)? If this is such a huge issue then create a clear identifier that clearly differentiates the poster "and discloses who he is" Frankly. Barry does more service to bringing relevant issues of the industry front and centre. Do not delete this page.

Searchengineman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchengineman (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Spurious autobiography tag
Somebody please remove the autobiography tag. This article may have been an autobiography four years ago, but since then it has been improved. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not only requesting other editors for peer evaluation, but a blatant specific request to edit as to reflect your perspective. Nobody else has come forward with it and I've left it as is, but you took upon yourself to remove it again, therefore I have reverted it and will leave it for another editor to review and for them to edit as they see fit, not manipulated by you or me. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing of AfD that may potentially cause undue influence
The subject has blogged about it on his Google+ and there is another blog like page complaining about this AfD. An undue influence may occur, so please see the contribution history of those making votes and comments and look to see if they've had any recent edits. One commenter on G+ has already stated he's made a fuss on author's behalf, which I consider to be an undue influence as "someone closely related to the subject"

The links of said convassing are


 * https://plus.google.com/107945426404682361496/posts
 * http://steveplunkett.amplify.com/2011/09/19/wikipedia-srsly-pubcon-rishil-rustybrick

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that most normal people know nothing of Wikipedia's arcane processes. Please don't WP:BITE the newcomers.  We need more editors to become involved.  Any clueful administrator will know to give less weight to the opinions of newcomers who show up at this AfD.  Jehochman Talk 03:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is understandable, however I believe the above mention will help editors reasonably experienced and proficient Wiki editing catch on where unsupported arguments and claims are coming from sooner. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Need for better references and edit by 64.134.229.6
A good chunk of references are from his own websites. such as search engine round table and Sphinncon page that lists @rustybrick.com as contact email. Quoting from the subjects own pages do not build any secondary sources and they're not helping to steer this article from autobiography status. Author's sites only casts the author in positive light and this is a WP:NPOV concern. The edit made by 64.134.229.6 looks questionable. This is the IPs only edit, and it is adding many links, and re-phrasing things with flattery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your editing is tendentious and disruptive. You tried to delete the article and failed.  Stop trying to defame the subject by accusing him of writing an autobiography on Wikipedia, when in fact the current content has been written by other editors, not the subject. Jehochman Talk 12:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Questioning and writing in anyways but flattering is not automatically considered defamation. You're quick to use strong words that do not really represent the actual situation. I nominated for deletion and the result was a marginal keep. I am not the sole party expressing WP:COI with this article as the closing editor, not surprisingly, stated there is obvious COI. Link to closed AfDCantaloupe2 (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)