Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Schwartz (technologist) (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   keep. There are obvious WP:COI issues in play here, but that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. There was also off-site canvassing, but that does not necessarily invalidate the positions of those canvassed. On the whole I would say consensus is (weakly) leaning towards keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Barry Schwartz (technologist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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).
 * 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).


 * 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)
 * 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).
 * 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)


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


 * 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 &bull; talk   22:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep As someone who works in the filed of Internet marketing, I've gotten to know and appreciate Barry Schwartz's presence at conferences where he covers them for Search Engine Watch. Over 19,000 people subscribe to his Twitter feed where publishes daily insights into the happenings within the industry. I know that Barry has been interviewed for his opinions & insight on the search industry by leading national US based TV networks. I will do my best to hunt down links to these interviews. Unfortunately, like many TV news interviews, they're not retained on broadcasters site even if they were ever posted there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Kology  (talk • contribs)  12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is nuts! It's Barry Schwartz for crying out loud. There are people on wikipedia who are in much smaller niche's and industries than that of search engines and the internet. Anyone in internet marketing, and especially SEO knows exactly who Barry Schwartz is, he's basically a celebrity. On that, how come there's no wiki pages for Rand Fishkin and Dave Naylor?

Not only is Wikipedia missing an entire niche/industry worth of notable figures, but they're thinking of deleting what little it has?!

SteveOllington (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — SteveOllington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Preceding comment was copied from the talk page — frankie (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems that Cantaloup2 wants to delete all of Wikipedia's content about SEO.  Cantaloup2 as you can see above makes outrageous, biased and false statements, speaking from ignorance.  Already Aaron Wall and Brett Tabke were deleted, which were not good decisions because Aaron is also an Internet celebrity and operator of SEObook, and extremely popular website, and Brett Tabke operates PubCon, and possibly the largest webmaster conference.  Rand Fishkin used to exist but Rand himself asked for it to be deleted. We should have bios for all the most famous webmasters. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jill Whalen and Bruce Clay were also deleted. Bad stuff. We should probably bring all these articles to deletion review for a more thorough discussion. Jehochman Talk 17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Much as I disagree with Barry's politics, he is certainly a notable individual. Not an Aaron Wall, but still notable enough to warrant an entry (phnarr!). In any other field Barry's level of notoriety would not be an issue, the same should be true of those who work in digital. No reason to delete and frankly this appears to be overzealous, self-promoting, slightly ridiculous editing. •  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He has made some appearances in the media, but I still don't see the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that we should have to write an article. Furthermore, I don't see anything exceptionally special about him to warrant an IAR pass from the guidelines. If we have an article on searchengineland he could be mentioned there, but I'm not seeing the need for a full-blown biography on him.  Them From  Space  19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD is being canvassed offwiki:   Them  From  Space  19:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, didn't realize that was a no-no. User:Rustybrick.  —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC).
 * It does make it pretty visible that you're trying to get your SEO buddies who identify themselves as expert to create an undue influence, which could potentially clash with WP:POV. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my (non-Wikipedian) friend Jim Hedger (viz. some of his work, for what it's worth) who is both a journalist who has covered SEO and a pretty strong SEO expert himself, assures me that he'd count Barry Schwartz as one of the notable figures in the field. So, in this area where I'm not expert myself, I lean toward keep. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * followup ok? I've NEVER heard of isedb.com. Is this a website most people skilled in the arts of internet publishing would know? How is this much different from asking a friend who is an editor of a city community college campus paper and saying he assures you that so and so student is "well known" in the community? What is your ground for the statement Jim Hedger is an expert? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Jim is necessarily an expert at the level of meriting an article himself (he may be close, but I wouldn't pass judgment on this on a colleague). I'm a solid computer professional myself: MS in Computer Science, have run some pretty large dev groups, etc. Jim, whom I've known for over 20 years, is one of the two people in my acquaintance I consider most expert on SEO. If he assures me (as he does of Schwartz) that someone is one of the leading figures in the SEO field, I tend to presume he knows what he's talking about.
 * I was not saying at all that isedb.com was notable, or even citeable. I provided the link as a reasonable sample of Jim's recent writing on SEO, so that people who don't know him could tell that I'm not just getting my opinion from a random acquaintance, but from someone who actually knows the field. SEO is a field where I do not have independent expertise.
 * Canteloupe2: a lot of your complaint seems to be "I don't know about this guy so he's not notable." Is this a field you know well enough that you would expect to know the notable names in the field? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Broader remark: It seems to me that we need a clear set of criteria on what constitutes notability in this particular area. Right now we have only half a dozen people in Category:Search engine optimization consultants, including Schwartz, which suggests to me that the bar is being set awfully high. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * reply How well known is the field in the interest of the general public? There are highly specialized attorneys, such as those with expertise in birth injury who maybe well known in the highly specialized field of law concerning medical malpractice, or among insurance companies. There are also notable professors well known within the HIGHLY specific field. What convincing argument do you editors have to offer that justifies the inclusion of "SEO experts" but not biography page for every person that may as well be considered "well known within the specialty field"? Ask an editor in charge of journals for that very specific field and he/she will likely say "that person is an expert and well known in the field of(( whatever )) ".  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very. If you own a business website, you pay attention to this stuff and have heard of these famous names.  Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean other people are unfamiliar with the topic.  Wikipedia is meant include all verifiable knowledge, not just: pop culture, Simpsons episodes, every crap musician who ever had a recording contract, and a complete catalog of Pokemon characters. Jehochman Talk 04:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well known to the general public according to what sources? You happen to be involved in related business, I am not. Knowledge among people in your specialty does not mean general knowledge(or lack of) among the general public. Wikipedia guidelines specifically say it is not for including every verifiable being on the face of earth. Notability is to established through reliable references, not personal experience.  Wikipedia doesn't extend inclusion to every verifiable local  bands. It doesn't include every person who's presence and occupation can be verified. Many of SEO " "  experts " " don't pass the Wikipedia inclusion criteria for having stand alone articles about them. The owner of a local sub shop doesn't usually meet notability criteria and getting other people to blog/tweet/mention/talk over a plethora of different websites do not make it so.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that search engine optimization isn't a noable topic? You are being very tedious and obtuse. Please go do something productive. You are commenting excessively here, drowning out the opinions of other editors.   Jehochman Talk 11:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You make excessive personal attacks by making every accusation you can think of for edits you don't like. Your accusation of "slander" on a tag you disagree with for one and rebelling about other articles for another. I encourage others to post their opinion. Don't tell me what to do. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:POINT. You are systematically attempting to delete every article about famous SEO practitioners, regardless of their notability. Whatever personal issue you have, please don't bring it into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It really does sound to me as though this is personal, if not some issue Canteloupe2 has with Barry Schwartz, then with SEOs and internet marketing in general.

I had heard of Schwartz before I even got into this industry. He's a writer, speaker, video blogger, industry expert, and a respected voice, whether one or two users respect what he's talking about or not.

Authors in specific genres aren't always well known outside of their audience and many certainly aren't household names, yet that industry seems to have credibility with Wikipedia. I've never heard of Juan Carlos Navarro, some Spanish basketball player on your front page, but I understand why he's there, for those who are into sports.

You're listing shoe designers, soil scientists, bullfighters, and strippers - yep, strippers. But for some reason, when it comes to people who have been successful and are influential in business, it becomes taboo.

Can't believe you're removing Barry Schwartz, and seriously, Bruce Clay and Jill Whalen?? Also second that Rand Fishkin and Dave Naylor should be included. Look outside of your own bubble, there's a great big world out there and these people are very well known and respected by many. If not you, that's fine, but this isn't a personal website.

Worrrd (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Worrrd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello and welcome. I see that this is your very first contribution here. I am not sure who you're addressing by "you".  Wikipedia is not a traditional publication that the publisher's editor makes inclusion/exclusion decision. Please refer to WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. It is not a directory of any people and inclusion is based on notability and the criteria is explained there. Some shoe designers are notable. Perhaps you've located some that aren't and they're subject to scrutiny of deletion nomination should anyone object to their notability. If you have further questions about notability, please ask questions on WP:N/N, noticeboard for notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Hey guys, this is my first time editing on Wikipedia, so sorry if I mess something up...I hope my errors are worth my contribution. I've outlined 3 reasons why I don't think Barry should be listed.

I'm speaking as someone who's been in the Internet Marketing / SEO industry for coming up on 3 years now, and I don't think I'd put Barry in Wikipedia.

Here's why:

Strike 1 - WP:SOAP / WP:POV / WP:COI

To me this debate all comes back to intention on the part of Barry, and if it were just me in charge of Wikipedia then Strike 1 and 2 would be the only argument needed.

Look at the facts - He created the page about himself, promoting himself and his website. This obviously doesn't jive with policies here on Wikipedia, I mean it's not even a debate in that regard. To say anything else is naive, especially since his page was originally much more promotional in nature.

To me anyone in the SEO industry warrants special rules / consideration, and I think intention should be a big factor as to whether or not the page remains in Wikipedia. Unlike the "random authors", "B list celebrities", and "Soil scientists" cited as narrow-niche examples in the above debate, SEO consultants make it their job to manipulate links and online exposure to their benefit.

Sure, there are a lot of "random authors" on Wikipedia, but how many of them created their own pages with the intent of marketing themselves? To me that's the difference between Barry and someone else with similar notoriety in a different niche - Barry obviously created the page out of self promotion. More on WP:GNG in Strike 3.

Strike 2 - WP:COI / WP:CANVASS

He canvassed this debate to his followers, which means that any positive support is potentially influenced his way by his blog and Google+, which he still hasn't removed after being reminded of the rules. Sorry guys, but to me it seems that if he really cared to be in Wikipedia because he felt he deserved it (not self promotion), then he would have at least taken down the offending posts AFTER the fact...I mean it's not hard to take something down.

As it stands now I feel inclined to simply disregard every single glowing "OMG HOW CAN YOU NOT INCLUDE HIM?!?!?! WE NEED MORE SEO CONSULTANTS!!!" response, because chances are they're trying to stick up for their buddy Barry, not improve the integrity of Wikipedia. Even if they're not, well, sorry Barry, I guess you should've taken down the offending posts on your blog so I could trust the positive opinions.

Strike 3 - WP:GNG / WP:NOTDIR

Yes, there are lots of random authors on Wikipedia as has been said. Yes there are lots of random athletes and celebrities as well. Why? (A) Because 90% of folks have at least a passing interest in books, sports or celebrities, and (B) they've done something noteworthy and publicly recognized in areas of GENERAL interest (which SEO does not fall into). When I look at just about any other extremely narrow field, such as Endocrinologists for example, the only names I see are people who are considered to be PIONEERS in the industry. There are not many currently practicing Endocrinologists listed (and none who created their own Wikipedia page).

Well wait a minute, don't Endocrinologists treat diabetes? And isn't Diabetes one of the fastest growing epidemics in the world? Well yea, I guess it is, so why aren't there more endocrinologists listed in Wikipedia? Because (A) no one in the general populace even remotely cares, and (B) Wikipedia isn't a directory of every noteworthy figure in every industry ever.

I think it was already established earlier in the debate that the snippet-references cited by Barry himself aren't substantial enough to warrant notability in the form of media attention, so to me it comes down to this question:

Has Barry done anything to qualify as a PIONEER in the field of SEO? To me the answer would be no. And by his own volition he is merely a search engine journalist, not an actual SEO consultant, and how many current journalists do we have listed in Wikipedia?

Don't get me wrong, he's a great journalist who's been around the block a few times and definitely knows his stuff, in fact I've stopped by SEwatch a few times myself, but in the SEO industry it seems like there are a hundred "Barry Shwartzes", and next year there are going to be a hundred more. If you include Barry, then within the SEO industry alone there are probably at least 50+ more similarly noteworthy/influential folks who should be included, some of which have already been deleted.

And remember, WP:GNG is the 3rd strike for de-listing Barry, not the first, so keep that in mind when you're deciding how lenient to be with it.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Hope this helps. Stepman77 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)stepman77
 * reply I think you're right on the ball with what you presented in "strike 3". If every verifiable person with secondary source quotation or mention was to be allowed a stand alone article, the integrity of Wikipedia would be compromised. Now that I think about it, some kid who's been listed in the local paper would be equally undeserving/deserving of his own article. I suspect WP:meatpuppet is happening when Mr. Schwartz canvassed about this deletion in a suspected attempt to manipulate consensus process. In the AfD, it has been reported by another editor that he is canvassing outside Wiki regarding this AfD. I think that it is an attempt to gain influence for the purpose of WP:meat Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Barry is not some kids who's been listed in the local paper. Please stop making insulting comparisons. 2) You have presented no evidence of meat puppetry whatsoever.  Either show the evidence or strike your false and defamatory statement against a living person or else I will ask an uninvolved administrator to block your account to prevent further inappropriate posts. Jehochman Talk 22:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.) No, but I feel that the they can be compared in my opinion. Disagreement with comparison does not equate insulting. 2.) See my words. "I suspect" I never stated that "it has been established" or "is". Opinion or suspicion is not defamation. It is an expression of opinion. When I left you a COI tag, you got all emotional and said it was harassment. Yet, you leave a warning on my page when you disagree with something. I feel influenced by your position of authority. I think that you're trying to suppress my opinions by telling me to suppress or you'll file a complaint. I do not feel that I am in violation of policy by voicing my opinion. An uninvolved administrator is welcome to leave me a message if their interpretation of rules differ. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The consensus agrees on the fact he exists and what he does.
 * He passes verifiability with little or no question on companies he's associated with.
 * It is true he's got a sentence or two coverage. In the USA Today article, it was just a sentence that said he was surprised.
 * A stand alone article like this page is not warranted in my opinion.

This is not about dislike for SEO specialists.I would have same reservations about stand alone individual articles on prosecutors in every local courts,page about every independently owned business like Anne's Coffee on Main St and the like. The shop could have been covered a few times in local paper(s) or a lot of tweets from its internet fans, but that doesn't warrant its own wiki article Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As much as I hate the autobiographical articles, I have to vote keep in this case. Similar to the reason that DGG gave, being interviewed and quoted in numerous articles as an expert in your field builds notability.--Ryan.germany (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: to me, one intuitive criterion on whether a person deserves a standalone article is: are there a significant number of people likely to look him/her up? If the answer to that is 'yes', then we should certainly have an article. Independent of the merits of this particular case, I tend to think that journalists in almost any field are likely to be looked up. While I discourage people starting articles on themselves, that's not a reason for deletion. It does mean that the content deserves close scrutiny, and it may call for a rewrite if the article seems promotional or otherwise biased, but with respect to notability it is a neutral. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 15:21, 22 September 2011 (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.