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


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. At a first glance, it looked like an obvious keep closure. But in determining consensus, the debate was nearly impossible to read, because of some mess that doesn't involve this specific individual, which made many of the comments here invalid, and that David in DC took care off. Now discussing this individual, the main debate is whether he meet GNG or not. The main source discussed in this debate doesn't give any indication why he meets GNG, as it's a clear cut one sentence passing mention of film review. In regards to policy, it is considered an invalid source to determine notability as it doesn't describe the subject "directly in detail". Based on this debate, I can't decide if the rest of the sourcing mentioned by the keeps commentators is valid nor the delete commentators doesn't go into extensive detail with the sourcing they found, and considering the mess that put this article on AFD in the first place, it is impossible to determine consensus here and relisting the debate for further commenting is practically useless. No prejudice for quick renomination. Secret account 03:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Schwartz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability (first raised at Talk:Aaron Swartz. He's an actor and he's listed at IMDB. Is that sufficient? Is there any of the necessary reliable independent coverage in adequate depth around to sustain a BLP?  We need critics, not just IMDB. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article says he began working as an actor at age 4. In Eleni (as the Czech Officer, see ref. 1). Questionable. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (sig added after edit by Evanh2008)
 * The article says that because Dervorguilla themself added that information in this edit and this edit. It's inappropriate to add false information to an article and then call for it to be deleted because of that false information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Metropolitan90’s point that Dervorguilla herself added that information is correct. Like the other sourced information, it’s from ref 1 of 1.  If the sourced information’s false, the article gets deleted.


 * 2. Given Metropolitan90’s point, Dervorguilla is now calling for the stub to be deleted because of the false information in the original stub. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Andy Dingley (and Dervorguilla) for getting Yworo and MichaelQSchmidt (and Dervorguilla) to fix the article so it no longer offends WP:BLP. Keep. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious -- why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your inquiry, Evanh2008. Others may be curious too.  New material posted at Dervorguilla’s user page should answer your question. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, as notability has been established by non-trivial mentions in two sources, albeit possibly not by sources that pass WP:RS. In any case, this is not a hoax, as Unsigned above seems to be implying. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources,” WP:REDFLAG. Not many four-year-olds could have played the role of the Czech Officer in Eleni. Not without a serious makeover. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And if that had anything to do with the article, that might be a compelling argument. As it now stands, the article doesn't mention him playing a Czech Officer in anything. If another source does, that's their problem. Verifiability and Notability are different policies. An article will not stand or fall at AfD based on verifiability issues (not that the problem you mentioned is even a verifiability issue, but you seem to be implying that it somehow is). Unless there is a credible reason to believe that Aaron Schwartz does not exist, and was not in Heavy Weights and The Might Ducks, this AfD should be closed per WP:SNOW. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, it looks as though the Eleni confusion was brought about by confusion with another Aaron Schwartz. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The article now says he played the Czech Officer in Eleni at age 4 and the Forensic Pathologist in Suspect at age 6. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, congratulations. You've added material you know to be false to an article you don't like in order to justify your demand for its deletion. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a fantastic way to get what you want. /sarcasm Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 *  Probable Delete  Playing a Forensic Pathologist at the age of SIX? No. I can accept Heavyweights as the age is about right for the part. Others are really the other Aaron Schwartz (I), who was old enough to play a night club owner in 1977. This one's a 'former actor', who became a Location Assistant - but has acting entries at IMDb up to 2012. There's a lot wrong here. (I) and (II) are mixed up, and the information that might be relevant is contradictory. Needs a complete rewrite if Heavyweights is considered enough for notability. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have looked into the history. Changing to Revert per Metropolitan90. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Revert to last version by Callanecc. The problems with this article stem primarily from this edit by Dervorguilla, which was made today, and which added information about, apparently, two other people named Aaron Schwartz into the biography of this actor. This is an apparent case of building the Frankenstein monster -- taking information about two or more people with the same name and combining them into the biography of one person. The actor Aaron Schwartz born in 1981 may be notable enough for an article, or maybe not, but he deserves to have his article evaluated on its own merits rather than by trying to evaluate him as though he (a) had been an actor as an adult when he really was a child, and (b) has switched to the much less prominent occupation of being a location assistant, when those jobs were actually performed by two other people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, Dervorguilla also removed information from the article that mentioned the subject's other roles, such as a recurring role on Gossip Girl. (See for confirmation that that is the same Aaron Schwartz.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Metropolitan90’s point that Dervorguilla removed the unsourced material is correct.


 * 2. Dervorguilla did not add information about two other people named Aaron Swartz. All sourced information in current article is from ref 1 of 1.  The material can be removed by deleting the article.


 * “Poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately…. If such material is repeatedly inserted … report the issue.” -- Dervorguilla (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The ref is Yahoo! Movies - if that's as reliable as Yahoo! Answers I wouldn't trust it very far. Based on IMDb (which at least is maintained by performers themselves), that is a conflation of IMDb's Aaron Schwartz (I) (the elder, who played adults in the 1970s and 80s) and Aaron Schwartz (II) who was in Heavyweights and the young roles. Calanecc's version is as accurate as I think we'll get. But we need to lose that Yshoo! reference as it is junk. Peridon (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, material is not contentious except to Dervorguilla, who is only trying to get this article deleted because he doesn't like (and keeps incorrectly removing) the hatnote on Aaron Swartz. Give it up. Yworo (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Yworo’s point that Dervorguilla doesn’t like the hatnote is correct.


 * 2. Dervorguilla doesn’t like the hatnote because “[it] targets a stub created in 2007. Only one substantive edit by a clearly legitimate editor — and he acknowledges, ‘I was in his class.’  Link could be seen as promotional.”


 * 3. The hatnote was removed by MarkBernstein.


 * 4. MarkBernstein doesn’t like the hatnote because “it was only added recently and it seems unlikely that many people will find it useful.”


 * 5. The article was nominated for deletion by Andy Dingley.


 * 6. Andy Dingley’s point is that “we need critics, not just IMDB.” -- Dervorguilla (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear that the current article conflates two or more different people. But Schwartz the child actor probably does meet Wikipedia's notability standards: he had major roles in significant movies.  I'm of two minds about that hatnote; do we require hatnotes to be symmetric as a matter of policy?  It seems to me that a link from Obscure Fellow to Famous Fellow is likely to be quite useful to people who land on Obscure's page by mistake, whilst hardly anyone who visits Famous's famous page is really wanting to find Obscure.  But I don't feel strongly about the hatnote.  MarkBernstein (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hatnotes are for finding similarly named people and similarly titled articles on Wikipedia. They are there to help people who aren't sure of the spelling of the person they are trying to look up. They are used regardless of the obscurity or notability of the target. It doesn't "harm" the article of a more notable person to have a hatnote pointing to a less notable one. Hatnotes exist to help people! What Dervorguilla is basically saying is that he doesn't like to help people find the article they were looking for simply because he doesn't want "his" article "marred" by a functional and easily ignored hatnote. That's inappropriate ownership. I say, "Tough!" Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, if Dervorguilla doesn't want to allow other people to improve Wikipedia, s/he should really reconsider precisely why s/he is here. Deliberately introducing erroneous material into articles through the misuse of sources is one of the few unforgivable things one can do on Wikipedia. If I were an admin, s/he would already be indefinitely blocked.  Yworo (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Hatnotes are usually from famous to obscure, or to close but different spelling (in which case they can go both ways). They very seldom do any harm, unlike the mixup here - however it happened. What I want to see here, now we've established that this Schwarz, that's IMDb (II), has certain things in his CV. Another Schwartz (I) has other things that crept in here through use of a bad source (we all do it at times...). We need to source to a better place than Yahoo! Movies - even if it's only to IMDb for now. I'm assuming that whatever's gone on here was by mistake rather than vandalism, and I hope everyone will try to find references to sort it out. Except me - I'm going to bed... Peridon (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Glad to see the reversion to the correct version. However, I do not feel filmographies count as RS in terms of establishing WP:N. I don't see anything other than incidental mentions in the press. If anyone can point out an RS or two, I could be convinced to change my vote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After the article was sourced I was pinged for a 2nd opinion. Basically all that the sources say is he had a minor supporting role took time off and now has another supporting role. They might as well be filmographies. This is all incidental stuff. There are no sources that really tell us anything about him. Vote unchanged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've browsed Highbeam and looked at reviews from when Heavyweights was released, but the only one who got more than a bare mention was Ben Stiller. Sadly Schwartz doesn't seem notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep of current repaired and sourced version (kudos to User:Yworo), as there is a case to be made for enough of his very few roles being significant enough in notable productions to meet WP:ENT, and there is a case to be made for WP:ANYBIO's being gently tweaked at by a group of youngsters receiving industry and peer recognition. Another option is to redirect to The Mighty Ducks as we might at least serve our readers by sending them a place where his contribution is worth a sourced mention.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ensemble awards don't count towards notability. Non-notable roles in notable films don't count either.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But of course a lead role in a notable film is by definition notable. Unless you are proposing that the Heavyweights article should be deleted? Are you? Yworo (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if there is critical review of his role in the film. If you find any articles that present critical commentary on his performance, then that role is notable. The only roles that are notable on WP are those for which there is critical commentary. If a role is just a line in a filmography it is not notable regardless of whether it is a lead role or an extra.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @ User:TonyTheTiger: I never said the ensemble nomination was one of those automatic considerations per ANYBIO... however, being part of a "group" that received peer recognition hints that there may be coverage of that person or group in relationship to that 1993 event. Perhaps even hardcopy sources not online.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Never heard of WP:HINTSOFRSSOMEWHEREPOSSIBLY--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it might fail WP:ENT. Nevertheless, you must take into consideration WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, which I don't see this article failing. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the GNG.  Th e S te ve   07:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per my rationale last time this was up 5 years ago, individual meets GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obvious keep as they very obviously meet notability. Obvious WP:TROUT for Dervorguilla for their disruption (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:GNG especially through the article in the Baltimore Sun (and presumably the NYT, though that one wouldn't load, so I can't be sure) and the one on CinemaBlend.com. CB.com even goes so far as to assert he "starred" in Heavyweights. Any way you slice it, Bonkers hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day, he meets GNG. Go   Phightins  !  14:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Minor actor. If this meets WP:GNG, then that means the standard has been watered down to little more than "has gotten a paycheck" and "has a pulse". Let IMDB handle that. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. GNG as I've seen it has been interpreted is has appeared in two or more mainstream sources which are more than simple mentions of the subject's name. Most people who have a pulse and get a paycheck don't get mentioned at all in the NYT, the LA Times, or the Baltimore Sun, much less all three, so your comparison falls on its face. Yworo (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Wanting to declutter a page on Aaron Swartz is not a reason to delete similarly named pages. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is nuts. This AfD is part of a wholly unrelated (and stupid) dispute about a hatnote on a different page. WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:POINT. In my view, once this AfD is resolved, the closing admin should review (or get another admin to review), the debate on the Aaron Swartz talk page, and follow up on the comments on this page related to them. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An argument at another article (inane and regrettable as that might be) still doesn't bypass GNG for a BLP. Does this guy pass our notability bar for an actor, and do we have RS to establish this? (I'm happy to follow Michael Q Schmidt's lead on this with a weak keep, as I trust his judgement on film stuff) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I'll split it out.  Keep because Yworo has pulled out the vandalism and gotten the article back to a state where the article, while still needing more sources, asserts sufficient notability, in reliable sources, to scrape by on GNG.
 * But the vandalism to the Schwartz article is waaaaaay more important than whether we keep or delete the Schwartz article. Once this AfD is closed --- whether as keep, delete, redirect, no consensus, merge, rinse, lather, or repeat --- I urge the closer to refer the WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:OWN issues outlined here to an appropriate forum for further review and whatever counselling or other measures might seem appropriate. David in DC (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly support counseling. See history at Talk:Aaron_Schwartz. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dervorguilla added material to the article talk page. I reverted it as it is NOT appropriate material for an article talk page (this AfD doesn't change that). David in DC re-added the material and posted comments (rebuttals? whatever). David asked me to leave it all in (on my talk page). I'm not; I'm removing all of it. I am not involved in this AfD, but the article talk page should be used to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss editors' interpretations of the history of other editors. Unless you can find another uninvolved admin who disagrees with me, leave the talk page alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like Dervorguilla attempted to chill other editors editing by making implied legal threats, which earn an immediate indef block. Shall I take it to AN/I? Or will Dervorguilla desist now? Yworo (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep would not even have been questioned without nonsense above. WP:TROUT In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I've separated out the two Aaron Schwartzes. Please review this diff and this new page.  I'm looking for reliable sources to flesh out the material I've learned from the Canadian's photography web page, personal blog, and law firm website.  I'll go mark them with cite requests now. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.