Talk:Barry Schwartz (technologist)/Archives/2015

COI
As documented in previous edits, the subject of this article canvassed protesting deletion in what appears to be an attempt to influence consensus. Some anecdotal claims were entered by new users to puff up notability during deletion process.

Link to closed AfD I observe COI, as also seen by Beeblebrox. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the coi tag. The concern if there is a conflict is interest is mainly whether the article is advertising in nature, or otherwise holds a non-neutral point of view. In this case, I think the article does conform to NPOV, and the content merely describes the subject in terms of his professional work. Regarding the refimprove tag, I don't think there is much of the content (which is scarce to begin with) that needs to be verified through an inline citation. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, but primary sources are acceptable provided they make straightforward statements that require no interpretation. The claims supported by the primary sources (or otherwise close to Mr. Schwartz) are limited to state his professional activities, while the news articles serve to confirm the claims that he is quoted within his field of expertise. So I think that tag should be removed as well — frankie (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The page has primary sources in the References section and the tone of the content is promotional. It needs cleanup. Moreover, the other references are not in proper context. Edwige9 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)