Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Schwedel


 * 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   delete. The argument that a variety of sources that don't indicate notability add up to one source that does is a novel interpretation, but not one I believe is supported by the community as it is not reflected anywhere but in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David A. Schwedel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Promotional biography of a non-notable businessman; lacks significant coverage by independent sources. The only news items I found are brief quotes in connection with somebody else. MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are numerous sources within the article, some significant and some trivial. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on notability, the Basic Guidelines allow for the combining of trivial sources in order to establish notability. That aside, there is plenty of independent significant coverage both in the article, and also not in the article (General notability guidelines state - "the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."). This means that although the article does not source all of the available sources on the subject, they are still available and NOT citing them all within the article should not be cause to consider the article non-notable. Now, regarding notability, this person founded numerous businesses (which citations support), one of which became a huge business before it went defunct after being bought out (it was also traded on the NASDAQ). He is also the main investor for three very large companies which are also cited in the article. Further in the article, you will see that he was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit against UBS and numerous others based on the conduct of Brad Birkenfeld in the UBS scandal. Not sure how the article promotes him as it is unbiased, cites reliable and independent sources, and from what I believe (of course that is why we are hear - everyone else is welcome to chime in) meets Wikipedia guidelines. Here are some additional sources for the article: Business Wire (press release - not really reliable),, Businessweek, Testimonial - Not really reliable but I thought I would mention it since I mentioned one of the many PRs, LA Times, Miami Museum Trustee List, Blue Trade - Insider Trading List, Leagle, S&P report for Synthesis Energy, SEC Ownership Information, Not sure what this is, it may be a mere mention, but wanted to list it as well. Shows a copy of the UBS lawsuit, PR - but independent of subject (released by a company he invested in), Financial News, High Beam (I don't have a subscription yet so not sure if there is more on High Beam), Businessweek, Medical News. Sorry for the long list - Just trying to state my case. --Morning277 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this extensive list of sources. My opinion remains that most of these are not independent reliable sources, and those that are are not significantly about him; they are quoting him in connection with the legal problems of his friend and associate Bradley Birkenfeld. Notability is not inherited, and simply being quoted in an article about somebody else is not significant coverage. That is my interpretation, others may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - User Morning277 makes a very good job of showing notability trough additional sources. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources linked above meet the requirements of independence, reliability and significance of coverage of the subject, and I can find no others that do so. Press releases and passing mentions don't cut it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I googled David's name and found a ton of stuff on him. I wouldn't call Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, or Forbes just any old run of the mill news source, thats top notch material. This is a very good article, and shouldn't even be here (AfD). Something worth deleting is stuff like  this . Now thats a waste of space. -- ‎Jetijonez   Fire!  22:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance or Forbes contain significant coverage of Schwedel? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete With possibly one or two exceptions, everything in Morning277's list is trivial or non-mentions of the subject; the exceptions are the next level up from trivial i.e. superficial. Those recommending Keep above have no understanding of what notability means. EEng (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Morning277's list is a mixture of press releases, directory entries and passing mentions. None of them are useful for the purposes of establishing notability.  I have a Highbeam account and can confirm that the paywalled article is the same as this one on Morning277's list. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Everyone makes a good point. Morning gives plenty of sources; however, there are some that are trivial. There are some notable sources; however, I think it is best to focus on basic notability guidelines and "combine the trivial mentions" and consider them notable. Combined with the other sources that are notable, this article would meet the notability guidelines. Unless there is something that I am missing from the "basic criteria" of Notability (people). --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you point out which of those sources specifically contribute to notability? -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per SimonKnowsAll's points. While I'm not in favor of the Energizer Bunny's deletion, I'm pretty sure that as Jetijonez remarked, Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes are all good sources. StereotypicalApps (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, which specific sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes have significant coverage of Schwedel? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Everyone keeps saying: Bloomberg Businessweek, Yahoo Finance, and Forbes. If you are talking about the sources cited in the article from those sources, here's what they are. Bloomberg Businessweek is an "executive profile"; such profiles are typically supplied by the company and thus are not independent. Yahoo Finance is a directory-type listing for one of his businesses and simply mentions him as CEO. The Forbes article merely lists him as one of 30 co-defendants in a lawsuit; the article is about someone else. Come on, folks, please take a LOOK at the links rather than being snowed by an impressive sounding source. This is not significant coverage by anyone's definition. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the point of RfD. Everyone here has their own interpretation of the notability guidelines. That is why RfD hopes to reach a consensus. Regardless of the 3 sources that you say are non-significant, there are plenty of other sources about him and his company that I feel are. Again, I want to point out (and it looks like there is only one other comment on this page about it) that numerous sources can be combined to be considered a reliable source. That is my contention. I still feel that there are reliable sources (or I would not have put them in the article) and that anything you (not I) would consider non-significant coverage can be looked at as a whole to establish notability. Again, I am not trying to argue with you, I am simply making a point that it is my contention that there are enough reliable (and "non-significant") sources to establish his notability. I guess the question that I would ask is "would you consider him notable based on the content in the article if there were sources that are considered significant according to what you feel is significant?"--Morning277 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the absence of significant coverage, one can establish notability with an abundance of lesser coverage. However, what we have been shown so far is coverage that does not even rise to the level of lesser coverage.  You now claim there are plenty of other sources that are significant.  I'll happily change my mind if you or anybody can present them here.  I've looked and didn't find anything significant. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What Whpq said. There is not even enough coverage to count as minor coverage. There is 1) non-independent coverage (which specifically does NOT count toward notability), 2) coverage that does no more than mention his name, and 3) coverage about another person in which he is quoted for a sentence or two. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. My general feeling is that there is enough of a story on the subject to be of interest to Wikipedia readers.  In the past, I have done other writing projects on the people involved in the early days of e-commerce and getting ideal references was difficult. Media coverage on the subject was sparse until it really caught on.   Nevertheless, in this case  I have found one more reference that supports the noteworthiness of David A. Schwedel.   The book, "The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad" by Michael A. Cusumano has a detailed case study of Marex Inc. and highlights Mr. Schwedel's contributions to the business.  Mr. Schwedel came up for the idea for the business in 1992 and was one of the early e-commerce pioneers as a result.  The case study presented in that book also describes surviving the internet bust and more.  This information is further supported by the above references, such Marex Inc. being named as part of the "Best of the Web" by Forbes.com.  A google preview of the book is available here: . Wolfrock (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please follow up the above 150 words with 150 words outlining what this source says about Schwedel himself (not about Marex) because that's all that matters. EEng (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to some of the coverage in that book about Schwedel. It can probably be counted as significant coverage. That's one. Now for the "multiple" part? Nothing else evident at Google Books - and IMO Google News Archive has already come up empty. (I wondered if Marex Inc. might qualify for an article instead, if this article is deleted - but again this book was about the only thing I found, aside from a NASA program named MAREX.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that this is significant coverage is laughable. EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I have to admit that I completely missed the reference that Wolfrock brings up. I will include it in the article. MelanieN, thank you for the comment I think you make a good point about MAREX maybe qualifying for its own article. However, the issue that I initially ran across with creating an article for Marex is that I do not know their current status. When you find press about Marex, it is linked to the time when David Schwedel was with them. The last reference that I could locate about them was when Brown Simpson Asset Management retained the Trippoak Group to restructure the company. There are no other sources that I can find that shows what happened to them or what name to search to find press about what they are now (I am speculating but knowing how these companies work the name was probably changed a couple of times and now it is just the proprietary rights to the software programs that are owned - and unknown by whom). I just got my HighBeam account but have not received an activation code yet. Hopefully I will be able to locate more references when I do receive it to show others coverage that they feel is more significant. --Morning277 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I wondered because many of the references currently in the article, or being suggested above, are actually more about Marex than they are about Mr. Schwedel. So it's possible you could make a better case for the company being notable, rather than the individual. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per MelanieN, Whpq, EEng, Phil Bridger, and WP:GNG. I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, either in the article itself or in the references listed in comments above.  "There is not even enough coverage to count as minor coverage" is close to the mark.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment GNG = Guidelines not rules, this article has as much right to be in here as any other one does (based on the references provided by morning), cause God knows we need stuff like  this , and  this , thats what makes Wiki an encyclopedia -- ‎Jetijonez  Fire!  21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's time to close this. EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was relisted on July 24 so it probably isn't due for closure until July 31. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, relisting does not extend the minimum discussion period. EEng (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite a long lsit of sources, not many are notable, and few are independent and reliable enough to substantiate notability of this guy. Fails WP:GNG. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources presented do not satisfy the GNG, per Phil Bridger and Jimsteel9999.  Them From  Space  03:57, 31 July 2012 (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.