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 no consensus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(blinks hard) Seven votes to keep vs. three to delete, two from first-time users suspected of being sockpuppets, constitutes "no consensus?" Ravenswing 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ravenswing. Consensus was to keep.--Alabamaboy 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schneider (writer)[edit]

Delete This subject is completely non-notable. All he's ever done is run a website that got mentioned one time in the New York Times. He has no publications of his own that are noted here. The subject does not justify an article, much less an article of this extensive length.Good Shoestore 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was listed by User:KyraVixen to complete the incomplete listing by User:Good Shoestore. — Good Shoestore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete I've read this article twice now, and for the life of me I can't figure out what it's doing in an encyclopedia. There's an important "Dan Schneider" who's a film producer, and who accounts for the Google hits, but he's not the topic of this article. The Dan Schneider we're talking about here is presented as a writer but has never published a book. Nor has he published much--if anything at all--in the realm of articles or stories. In fact, there's not a single notable thing about him in the banal biography presented here. Even the casual mention of his extremely obscure website in the New York Times is a passing one, hardly qualifying this article as a notable one. Probably it was written by a personal friend of Schneider. I vote to delete it.Professor Ron Hill 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) — Professor Ron Hill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep Almost 20,000 google hits for "Dan Schneider poet." Obviously notable. Of the three Dan Schneiders listed in Wikipedia, the writer is tops in Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=Dan+Schneider&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

This over a tv star and pro athlete. Wikipedia has articles on many online sites and personalities, and this site is among the most popular online.

- Commentary. Hmm. The only vote in support thus far is from an unsigned and anonymous dial-up. I wonder if that vote is from Dan Schneider himself. What he states is inaccurate--most of the hits are for Dan Schneider the film producer or Dan Schneider the athlete. The unpublished poet is hardly more notable than the other two Dan Schneiders. In fact, the confusion among the three is probably what has allowed this vanity article to exist for so long.Professor Ron Hill 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- On the one hand, this doesn't feel encyclopedic enough... but on the other hand, I hesitate to pull the trigger on a page with multiple independent sources. There are certainly unverifiable biography statements on this page, see WP:BLP. But I'm not ready to delete this altogether. Alba 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scrapes the bottom of the barrel on WP:BIO, but "The person has created a ... collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries?" I'd say he's met that. (And since the page was created by an admin whose created a number of literature-related pages, calling it a "vanity" page is a bit much of a stretch. That info took me about thirty seconds to discover.) Ravenswing 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong DELETE. Dan Schneider has not "created collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries." All I can find is that he's run a website. Big deal. Anyone can set up a website.207.62.231.2 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Ummm ... "all" you can find is that he runs a website? Then you either didn't read the article or didn't pay attention when you did. The New York Times? NPR? A sister pub of the Village Voice? This article has verifiable sources, and some genuinely significant ones to boot. As far as your screed against Alabamaboy goes, allow me to quote from WP:COI: "In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." There is nothing about this article showing the use (never mind the abuse) of admin powers to create; any editor could have done it. Presuming sockpuppets have been used to update the article (a huge if), there is nothing in policy prohibiting or even discouraging the same. Possibly there is some reason for this smoke screen, but I can't figure it. Ravenswing 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, encyclopedic biography. He certainly has sufficient note for the author to have written a good article, even if doing so wouldn't necessarily be recommended by strict application of WP:N. No purpose is served in deleting verifiable information. Also, the alleged misbehavior of the contributor does not, at least in this case, reflect on the quality of the contribution. --Dystopos 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The sockpuppet which started this AfD, as well as the anonymous editor who posted personal info about me, is related to a case of cyber stalking, as detailed on my talk page at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Cyber_stalking_and_harassment. The accusation of me using sock puppets in this article is wrong. And with regards to this article's subject, Dan Schneider is a well-known writer, poet and critic. All of the bio info in this article came from a front-page City Pages article, which is how I first learned of him. If needed, I can provide additional references for this bio information, but since they come from that article I thought I'd sufficiently provided them. Because there are several Dan Schneider article on Wikipedia (the writer, an actor/producer, and a baseball player), the best way to google his notability is to google "Cosmoetica," which is Schneider's well-known website and is a unique name. It has 54,000 hits. When that is added to the list of credible media sources that mention Schneider, this article's subject is notable. As a side note, I deleted the personal info this cyber stalker placed about me in this AfD. I specifically asked a member of the Arb Committee if this was permitted and the answer was yes. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, well, well. Come to that, the nom's and his only supporter's first edits are on this AfD. Under the circumstances, this has a strong flavor of bad faith nomination to it. Ravenswing 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Professor Ron Hill and Good Shoestore were both verified as sockpuppets of this cyber stalker by a member of the arbitration committee. I would like to repeat that this subject is notable, as proven by the major media articles about him. To further prove this point I've added in new references to the article, including another news article from the Star Tribune newspaper and where The Village Voice quoted him.--Alabamaboy 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:N by being the main subject of articles by three reliable sources. --Charlene 02:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to vote on this but looks like someone has really jumped the gun in clearing this dude's info out of articles.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vanity entry in Wikipedia about a writer who has self-published on his own website. He has not received any recognition outside of that at all. He has no importance. 38.2.108.125 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remain civil. You have claimed "this is a vanity entry" without providing any proof, thereby accusing both its creator (User:Alabamaboy) and its subject (Dan Schneider) of vanity. Your statement that "He has not received any recognition outside of that at all" is incorrect (even the nominator admits to the existence of a NYT article). Finally, as we are discussing a living person, you should refrain from offensive comments like he "has no importance". -- Black Falcon 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite contrary to the nominator's assertion, the individual in question has been the subject of multiple published works. Keep per the improvements to the article made by User:Alabamaboy (see diff). -- Black Falcon 18:46, 14 March 2007 (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.