Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Schwartz (writer)

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 consensus was keep --Aarktica 16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Schwartz (writer)

• delete not notable, fails wpbio, minor author at best, but not encyclopedia worth, perhaps merge into the ari article Buridan 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Randcruft essentially, not really notable outside of objectivist circles, and even then I wonder. Lankiveil 10:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep; Schwartz is Leonard Peikoff's second-in-command and considered likely to succeed Peikoff as pope of objectivism once the latter dies. The article does need better sourcing, though. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, come to think of it, a merge back into Leonard Peikoff or Ayn Rand Institute might not be a bad idea until there is more to be said. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I found his book Objectivist Epistemology highly influential. "Peter Schwartz objectivist -wikipedia" on google gets 33k hits.--Otheus 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken in thinking he had a hand in editing Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I probably came across his name in trying to discern the differences between the Libertarian movement/party and the Objectivist movement. Otheus 11:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep. Essential to the founding of the modern Objectivist movement through ARI and his magazine. Central figure in Objectivist movement controversies. Appears on television and radio, has op-eds published in major newspapers. Very notable within Objectivits movement. Endlessmike 888 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Schwartz is am important figure in the ARI, and it is likely that he will be more important in the future. I suggest to add more beff to the article from, for instance, these sources [1][2][3][4][5][6] Randroide 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment the question is not whether you want to keep him, but whether he passes WP:BIO...., he does not and is not by definition notable, being possibly notable in the future when he replaces someone else who is notable because of wp:org is not being notable now, what if there is a change?--Buridan 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Taking the above comments that he's a big shot in Randian circles at face value. Writing a scholarly book and being founding editor of a bluelinked journal doesn't hurt his case either. Herostratus 15:36, 21 April 2007 (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.