Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Schwartz (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a consensus that the sources available do not convey notability on this person (not to be confused with other Adam Schwartz's who might or might not be notable). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Schwartz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Adam Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find the CEO not notable and fails WP:NBIO. The references are mostly about TeePublic and the Forbes ref is a sponsored publication. It is WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he stole my idea from Busted tees so I think he should be deleted just like we did before. If you look back at the history of BustedTees, they were built on the back of artists like me, and we at one point calculated that 73% of the tees on the site were from part of our collective. Then, they made a new business, copied most of the designs, without any credit or recognition or compensation (which, frankly, living in an unheated flat, is the most important thing, unfortunately.) When you look back at his pages that we deleted from 10 years ago, you'll see that we had information up that was taken down, so clearly he doesn't want the truth to be there, so frankly we may have to file a suit to get the truth out there. It's unfortunate in this day and age there's so much capitalism that's stealing from hard working creative types (I mean, look at all the "exposure" I'm getting) so thank you Amkgp for your work on exposing this, and hopefully, causing some justice to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.205.61 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC) — 208.58.205.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As the creator of the article, it looked like it was deleted in 2007 and 2010, and there's been a lot since then published on him , pro-and con. I'll go to work on putting better references in. I appreciate the feedback. Additionally, the Forbes article does have a lot of advertisements, but it is not sponsored content. Nomination requirements for the award are found here.Chestsuva (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through it pretty carefully, this seems to be coming from the magazine/editorial side. I agree with you about Forbes and their "contributors" in general, though, and don't generally use them. Also, if a different person was deleted in 2007, would we give this a bit more chance to breath? Working on adding more in. Chestsuva (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. He may be a mover and shaker, and up and coming, but has not had significant coverage in reliable sources. The Forbes pages do not count towards notability. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI've had a look at the article's sources and there are others; NYTimes and some trade pubs are independent reliable sources. Enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. At very least, let's relist and see if author can add any more. Would also like to look at 2007 deletion that seems to be about EFF attorney, which may shade some of our views 76.192.154.136 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)— 76.192.154.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input from experienced editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with comments above, not enough reliable resources. Forbes is known for the ease at which regular people can become published or otherwise covered in the news. While an impressive mover-and-shaker as one editor described, there are many mover-shaker people among us, most of which are not currently notable. If the original editor has any other detail to contribute that support WP:N, they should do so.10Sany1? (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per scope. - Owais Talk 23:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure these three votes add much to the previous muddled discussion. Yes, Forbes is generally focused on churnalism, and has many, many pay to play options, however, the listing for Schwartz was based on their (vanishingly slim) print, independent material. While this is definitely a sad death knell on the continuing decline of independent print journalism, that makes me weep, it did seem like that particular focus met GNG. Also, I'm slightly concerned that there's been a little conflation between this Adam Schwartz and the other one who works at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and if this gets deleted, it appears that, based on the earlier discussion, there's confusion between the two identities and it's really going to muddy the waters re: the EFF page, which I've seen done occasionally, and seems like a disambiguation page might be considerably better, (Note to Closer; I'm happy to propose one) and then resume this deletion discussion in order to determine that we've met all the criteria that are needed. Chestsuva (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The fact this person may have adversely affected the financial future of someone who edits here on Wikipedia, while horrific, is of no consequence to the notability of the subject and does not disqualify them from having an article. Forbes Magazine editorial section in which the writers are among the actual staff (primarily found in their printed versions) is ALWAYS considered a reliable and verifiable independent source. The New York Times is considered reliable. All that matters is GNG and if the article is written with a NPOV from the available reliable sources. It appears this subject does. AfD is not "article cleanup". You can't say, if...then this... Either he is notable or he is not, period. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Hey Tsistunagiska, you're going around various AfDs putting GNG on a pedestal, ahead of appropriate subject-specific notability guidelines. Perhaps you are unaware but that viewpoint is just plain wrong. We have policies and guidelines. Policies trump guidelines and WP:N policy states in WP:SNG "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. HighKing++ 14:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and the subject to WP:SPIP and WP:SIGCOV concerns. In the NYT article report it says of helping in an event organizing that does not make him notable 42.106.199.217 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per IP, above, disagree with the sentence about "NYT article report it says of helping in an event organizing that does not make him notable", has absolutely no relevance to [1] which is an important story, and this whole "T-shirt" thing seems to be avoiding the EFF component. 64.231.48.39 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)— 64.231.48.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete All notable events are tied to the company. 1292simon (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing significant outside the scope of his company. Serankail (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability criteria. None of the references contain Independent Content which is the other half of being an independent reference. HighKing++ 14:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. ^ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/ice-dhs-cell-phone-data-tracking-geolocation
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Schwartz_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=987732268"