Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter 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 of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Schwartz

Schwartz isn't notable. He's a journalist and on a board and those things certainly aren't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. --Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, Jason's first objectivist nom that's actionable. Ruby 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless article is expanded to demonstrate notability more clearly Dlyons493 Talk 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No case made for notability. Crunch 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment another bad faith nomination. He's apparently going after every atheist he can find. Mark K. Bilbo 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Objectivists make sure to be overrepresented online, but still if he headed a magazine important enough to be on Wiki that's enough by a hair.--T. Anthony 07:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. searching +"Peter Schwartz" +Ayn (Ayn is to eliminate other people called Peter Schwartz) does return a sufficient number of websites about him, including a couple of books on Amazon.com. At least two of his books, Inevitable Surprises: Thinking Ahead in a Time of Turbulence and The Return of the Primitive : The Anti-Industrial Revolution seems to have recieved a wide audience.--Ezeu 07:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good search Ezeu. Kappa
• Keep - notable. --Bduke 11:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I don't know that this person has done much to deserve a wikipidea aritlce. Certainly, hes written a lot of opinion pieces....WP:BIO says he needs to be a writer for a journal with over 5,000 circulation. Can this be verified for this guy? --Pierremenard 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ezeu or merge with The Intellectual Activist (no admin intervention or AfD required) and note WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Ezeu, T. Anthony--FloNight 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ezeu. -- Dragonfiend 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, for reasons of notability --kingboyk 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Jim62sch 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Latinus 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• merge with father. Jcuk 19:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well known Ayn philosophy scholar. Arbustoo 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. If this weren't a stub, it would be obvious that he's notable. -Harvestdancer 02:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schwartz is considered cult leader Leonard Peikoff's second-in-command. And the article is suitably short. Keep an eye on this one to ensure it doesn't get filled with exaggerations, but it should be kept since this meets verifiability requirements. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:38, 23 January 2006 (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.