Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Swartz


 * 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 of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz
Vanity article about a relative unknown Maxplank 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known in the area of web standards (RSS, RDF). Only 140 unique google hits out of 499,000 total, but I take this as indicative of highly focused activity rather than non-notability. Notable for his work on the RSS 1.0 spec if nothing else. Has written an op-ed for the New York Times, spoken at conferences, etc. The article could use some expansion. rodii 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a kid who spams around the web his own name. The article was created by himself, and if you go visit his homepage he writes "he even appears on Wikipedia". WTF!!! He is a relative unknown, and it's all about vanity. He is just YET ANOTHER loser. 1:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.71.106.95 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Keep, although it could stand to be rounded out and unfortunately does read like a vanity page right now. But he's mentioned several times in the RSS article alone. Totally Noteable. -- Vary | Talk 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've toned down the prose a bit. Better?  -- Vary | Talk 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Better, although 83.71.106.95 up there added some condescending stuff that should have been taken out (which I did). I have no involvement with Aaron, never met him or corresponded with him, but I know his work. The comments above and the defacing of the article smell bad to me. The actual edits of the article by Aaron Swartz look pretty minimal to me, unless someone knows that anon 69.181.82.221 is him (not impossible). rodii 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I did not create the article. I believe it was created by Andrew Morrow, who I'd never heard of until he sent me an email saying he'd created a page about me on Wikipedia. He said he created it because I was referred to in a number of other articles on Wikipedia. (There are 4 backlinks: RSS (file format), Paul Graham, Low-power, and Markdown.) And if it's bad form to link to one's wikipedia page from one's website, let me know and I'll take the link down. AaronSw 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The backlinks are very convincing.  I've always thought the point of having notability  criteria is to avoid cruft and keep only useful material...not to argue about if someone is "famous".  Is Swartz notable enough?  The answer to that should be related to, are the links to the page currently serving a purpose?  I think "yes".  --C S (Talk) 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm a knowledge management research scientist and I've heard of him and his work.  (In fact, I'm referencing one of his publications in a paper I'm writing today.)  Not sure if that means the average Joe would also be interested in him, but it does show that there is at least some audience for this article. —Psychonaut 22:51, 3 January 2006 (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.