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 Keep--JForget 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Schanze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable Servicenetbest 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Reliable sources for this character are cited. He has some notoriety on a state wide level. Also, I am curious as to the nominator's intentions. According to Servicenetbest's contribs history, initiating this AfD is the only edit I see. That's an uncommon first edit. Am I just imagining this, or is something fishy going on? OfficeGirl 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing fishy going on here. It is true that I am new to Wikipedia, I was not aware that being a new prevented me from suggesting an artcile be deleted. If I have overstepped my bounds then I apologize. My belief is that the subject, while somewhat notorious in Utah, is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. He is primarily known for childish stunts, run-ins with the police and a failed business venture. You might as well let every teenager in the land create an entry about themselves. Servicenetbest 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Servicenetbest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He might be an idiot, but if he's a well-known idiot receiving newspaper coverage for childish stunts and stupid behavior, he's got a shot at being notable. You are certainly welcome to participate in any part of the Wikipedia process as a new user. I hope you will forgive my query, as there has been quite a bit of edit warring over this article and it is not unheard of to see someone create a new account to initiate drastic action on an article just to prove a WP:POINT. OfficeGirl 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I suspect that this nomination was sparked by Dell's appearance in the news last night for paragliding within feet of a ship at sea. The rationale behind such a nomination would be, "I can't believe this guy gets so much attention for doing such stupid stuff, I wish the news would take him out of the spotlight, so I'm going to do my part by taking away his spotlight on Wikipedia." Dell clearly meets the criteria for notability, this nomination is a snowball in my opinion. Reswobslc 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral based on my confidence in the other editors who have commented. Delete on the basis of no intrinsic notability. The articles are examples of the sort of journalism that deals with curious local events, even those of no real importance or notabilty. A string of minor misdemeanors does not make a notable criminal, and he's known for nothing else. News coverage about things that are trivial is trivia, in the real sense of things not worth writing about. Writing it as paragraphs doesnt make it more notable. DGG (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you're underestimating the magnitude of how well this guy is known (and hated by many, for better for worse). His stunts consistently make front page news because of how well he is known by name. Mainstream newspapers covering 1-million-plus metropolitan areas don't put some guy's cute little stunts on front-page news just for no reason. Per WP:N there is no question he is notable due to significant and ongoing media coverage over the last 5 years. Reswobslc 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite his antics, he appears notable. -Toptomcat 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reswobslc is dead on-the-money. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 22 September 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.