Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Schwartz


 * 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. Notably, TEDx is not the same as TED. TEDx events are licensed events that use the TED branding, but anyone can put one on if they can pay the fee. Speaking at a TEDx event is much different than being invited to give a TED Talk. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mel Schwartz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An outrageously promotional article and likely a COI creation. The article does not contain a single independent source, and a BEFORE search shows that he has been quoted and interviewed in a number of outlets, but does not turn up sufficient biographical coverage to justify an article. Hence delete. Blablubbs | talk 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs | talk 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs | talk 15:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please let us know what you recommend or suggest instead of deleting this. Mel is a highly successful psychotherapist and speaker who is helping thousands of people overcome mental health challenges, which is critical at this time during a global pandemic. He has spent a lot of time on his work and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.38.51 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "we"? Blablubbs | talk 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Google Scholar and JSTOR don't have anything about him. A Google News search turns up a few Salon interviews and one in a local/regional paper about him. Semi-notable... Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is that interviews aren't really independent coverage – they can't be used to verify anything aside from the fact that the subject has said something, and hence don't really help establish notability. Blablubbs | talk 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ^This is spurious reasoning. There are obviously barriers to being interviewed and/or quoted on a topic by mainstream media outlets, like those below, such as an established track record in your field of expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:b001:183e:816:2b7c:8d9a:c620 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete we need actual 3rd party coverage of him, not interviews with him, to actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ^This is spurious reasoning. There are obviously barriers to being interviewed and/or quoted on a topic by mainstream media outlets, like those below, such as an established track record in your field of expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:b001:183e:816:2b7c:8d9a:c620 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not spurious reasoning. Notability and prominence aren't the same thing; we need in-depth coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. Can I also ask you to please sign your comments, not copy-paste the same comment at two people and to not bludgeon discussions? Thanks --Blablubbs | talk 15:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for responding to two similar comments with the same response. Though, I do disagree with you, and I do believe it is spurious reasoning. These are not self-published works or tweets that are being cited to establish authority; they are reliable, third-party sources. In your opinion, at what point does notability become prominence? Is one article from Salon as insufficient as six? Are TV, radio, and podcast interviews of him invalidated because they are spoken word interactions as opposed to antiquated written profiles? These strike me as dubious, subjective arguments and standards for an encyclopedia that is expansive enough to have entries on every single Pokemon character to ever exist. I appreciate your point about the need for independent, reliable sources. That's why I have included the sundry list below. Mr. Schwartz is the preeminent thinker in the emerging field of Quantum Psychology. While the field itself may just be gaining traction, Mr. Schwartz is the go-to individual for media contacts on the matter. Big fish, little sea? Perhaps. But his Wikipedia entry absolutely meets the general inclusion threshold as set forth by Wikipedia. The subject is notable enough - there is no mention of "prominence," by the way - for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about him that has been published in a reliable source. I encourage you to follow the links below for further evidence. And if you feel the entry is "outrageously promotional," I'd further encourage you to edit it to Wikipedia's standards instead of promoting it for deletion, as I do not believe it is worthy of that ignominious consideration. - Yours in Humble Service, Sisyphean Lament — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:b001:183e:7cbb:e34d:d21a:7898 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's correct, it says nothing about prominence; that was the point I was making above. Even if he gets quoted a lot, and is an important thinker (and might hence be considered "prominent" or "famous") that doesn't make him notable: We define notability as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources provided thus far do not establish that he meets this standard. Yes, some of the sources are reliable, but they mostly quote him, which is not independent coverage. Articles about non-notable entities are not an argument for this one to not be deleted either. On a different note, do you have any connection to Schwartz? And again, please sign your comments. Instructions for doing so are linked above. --Blablubbs | talk 18:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Mr. Schwartz is a noted speaker with not one but two TED Talks, which have garnered hundreds of thousands of views; he has an established track record of contributing to the field of modern psychology as cited by noteworthy, reliable, mainstream sources, ranging from ABC TV to CNBC to Forbes  to ABC News to Salon       to The Boston Globe to Crain's to National Public Radio to Columbia University to Psychology Today to Men's Health and other print magazines features    ; and he is an author whose work and last book received editorial reviews and has been cited by four other individuals with Wikipedia pages.       — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:B001:183E:816:2B7C:8D9A:C620 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go through the sourcing here.

I don't believe any of those are suitable to establish notability. Blablubbs | talk 15:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ted1 – Talk by him, hence basically SPS, not usable (and not reliable either)
 * ted2 – dito
 * Forbes1 – council post, unreliable per WP:FORBESCON
 * Forbes2 – dito
 * ABC – Quote, namedrop, not coverage
 * Salon1 – Interview, not independent
 * Salon2 – dito
 * Salon3 – dito
 * Salon4 – dito
 * Salon4 – dito
 * Salon5 – dito
 * Salon6 – dito
 * boston.com – dito
 * Crainsnewyork – dito
 * rnz – Interview, hence not independent
 * clumbia – Profile in an alumni blog, not really a significant publication, mostly based on quotes
 * psychologytoday – not independent
 * amazon – SPS, unusable.
 * Comment I'm also dubious of TED talks, they seem to hand them out like cookies now, to just about anyone they can sign up. It's not as high class as it once was. TEDx especially. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV - there are zero reliable and secondary sources, so there is no significant coverage. TEDx talks are a sign of possible notability, but is not automatic. FWIW, I like reading Salon, but it's not a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (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.