Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schneider (writer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I've discounted the long and confused SPA rants.  Sandstein  18:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (writer)
AfDs for this article: 

'''NOTE: Per discussions on the Administrator's Noticeboard, people have lost patience with SPAs, attacks and endless circular fighting over this AfD. The consensus of established editors both on this page and ANI appears to be that the subject of this article is notable and the article should be kept--and protected--in its current well-sourced version. Because I have been involved in the discussion here, I will not close this AfD but ask someone else to do so since its obvious this SPA junk isn't going to resolve anything.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)'''
 * (Quick note- I support this motion 100%- Closure with consensus 'Keep' with NPOV safe). StevenEdmondson (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is protected so I am initiating an AfD per the suggestion of another editor on the admin noticeboard, rather than necessarily as my own opinion. That said, I have performed the customary Google test and while there is a certain amount of talk about this writer, it appears that much of it is the result of some fairly assiduous self-promotion; there is something of the walled garden about it, with his notability being supposedly boosted by his promotion of his criticism / blogging / whatever of more notable writers' work. The article has been the subject of long-term POV-pushing (hence protection) by a decent-sized nest of WP:SPAs, and there has also been spamming of the subject's website on numerous articles often on fairly tenuous grounds. Previous AfD claims large numbers of ghits, I see only around 8,000 for "Dan Schneider" +poet - omit the quotes and you get more but of course many of those are for other schneiders and with Dan in the page somewhere. Dan Schneider the director plus some poet references also account for other unrelated hits. Perhaps Google is not really helpful, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I'm the original author of this article. It appears that the article has been subjected to a lot of edits by SPA in recent months. However, I have now reverted the article to an earlier version, which was both NPOV and filled with a number of reliable sources proving that this subject is notable enough for an article. This is essentially the same version of the article that was subjected to a previous AfD, where the decision was to keep. While I don't agree with the SPA POV pushing, this is a notable subject and a good article. I should also point out that because there are multiple Dan Schneiders, the Google test on his name is not a good measure. Googling his website Cosmoetica (which is a unique name) yields 30,000 hits. But either way, what matters are the reliable sources and media mentions to establish notability, which are in this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about some of those sources - can people take a look as there are a lot of them and just me reviewing them will take a long time. I intend to have a good look at them in the morning and then !vote. --Procutus (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you questioning--the sister paper of the Village Voice, the New York Times, the Star Tribune, or the Cambridge University Press? All of the sources are valid. I have a long track record here of writing articles about literary figures who, while not well known to the general public, are quite notable in their area of writing. I always back up my articles with reliable sources.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP: I am the SPA who has been editing this page, and as I stated there, on the TALK page:

Similarly, you have removed all of the other sources that back up all the quotes and claims in the article.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Schneider passes easily.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]

Schneider passes easily.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]

Schneider is an interviewer with the only in depth interviews many of his subjects have given. Schneider passes easily.

In short, the article, even in your truncated forms, meets both Basic Criteria, as well as many secondary ones.

So, again, if the article easily meets notablilty requirements, has survived earlier deletion when it was even less notable and popular, and is heavily sourced with direct links to the sources quotes and information is taken from (or was, before thee vandalism), then why are you trying to remove it?

All articles- on celebrities, films, books, writers, politicians, scientists, have their own fans who try to improve the articles. Are you seriously suggesting the improvements I made, fully sourced, have not made the article better, expanded information on the subject, and generally given a reader information to better find out things about the writer, the site, and the many contributors to the site?

In short, I have followed Wiki procedure to the letter, sourced all the relevant information, and called many of the vandalizing editors on their vandalism- if Websites such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogcritics

few sources and neutrality disputed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_and_Critics

no sources and non-notable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Clear_Politics

sourced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post

lightly sourced, and a list of contributors far longer than this site's, plus an accuracy warning

that lack sources and are pov are on Wikipedia, so too should be this page, as well as one for the website Cosmoetica.

This is nothing but blatant hypocrisy, and another example of why Wikipedia is often derided online.

In short, there has been the blatant removal of firsthand and second hand information about numerous notable people simply because certain editors do not like this page.

Again, there were many sourced pages with direct quotes, from numerous sources, by numerous people, all associated with this page's writer and website. To not recognize that reality is silly. It's time to end the childishness.Cop 666 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep I have no idea why this is even being discussed. Cosmoetica fits ALL of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Self-promoted or not, your point is irrelevant -- Cosmoetica easily has some of the most content of any literary website, as well as consistent quality and great notability -- hundreds of long, detailed essays, most of them penned by Schneider himself, and often covering subjects and writers no one else covers. Find me another website that makes such significant critical mention of James A. Emanuel, Judith Wright, Robert Hayden, and others.. you won't. And, the above writer is correct: Schneider has interviewed many well-known figures, in ways they (or anyone, for that matter) have never been interviewed before: in-depth, and covering everything from detailed biographical information to some of the less discussed aspects of their work. Combine that with the fact that Schneider's poetry (as well as that of the other featured poets') is some of the best today, and you have a damn important website that also happens to be one of the most popular literary websites on the planet. Bekaymecca (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I actually think this article should if not be deleted, be protected to reduce problem with editors inflating to ridiculous sizes. (Also due to the author/subject's tendency to use sock-puppet accounts, it is diffcult to tell how many saying 'Keep' are genuine). The article was and is full of irrelevant information, critic is not notable other than for his self-promotion. Ultimately, this article seems to exist only to promote his work. If kept I think it needs to be protected, so it cannot be inflated to a ridiculous extent again. On the basis that it seems a further example of the critics self-promotive tendencies and does not seem balanced, with parts of at least some forms seemingly obviously being written by Dan himself, (see Cop66's post).  (StevenEdmondson (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)).

Strong Keep Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Daniel Wallace, Desmond Morris...these are not obscure names. The interviews with these figures are the most in-depth you'll find. The user StevenEdmonson, who edited the Schneider page, has some personal issue with Schneider; note how he described his film reviews as 'silly'-- he's obviously never actually read one, as they are very in-depth reviews, with many appearing in web publications outside of Cosmoetica. Really, there is no reason why the most popular not-for-profit arts site and founder should not be on Wikipedia, especially when you already have entries for sites like Blogcritics, which 'only' amounts to reviews by assorted bloggers. The Wiki page for the producer/actor Dan Schneider is full of irrelevant material that really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, yet for whatever reason StevenEdmonson and MarnetteD haven't bothered to clean it up--probably because they are too busy wasting everyone's time trying to delete this page. Wikipedia readers should not have to lose out just because of someone's pettiness.Uprightgreen (talk) 30 August 2008 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Cosmoetica easily has some of the most content of any literary website"

Immaterial

" as well as consistent quality and great notability -- hundreds of long, detailed essays, most of them penned by Schneider himself, and often covering subjects and writers no one else covers"

Thats very debatable. In my opinion the essays are of a shockingly low standard (and many people on the internet seem to share that opinion) but on the other hand it does get quite a few hits. To say they are of 'great notability' though is ludicrous.


 * "Find me another website that makes such significant critical mention of James A. Emanuel, Judith Wright, Robert Hayden, and others.. you won't"

Immaterial.

"Combine that with the fact that Schneider's poetry (as well as that of the other featured poets') is some of the best today"

Says who? Has any critic of importance ever discussed these poems?

Personally I think the whole site is a massive ego trip for the writer being discussed, and the editing of his page (by sockpuppets) only confirms this self-promotion- but my opinions on his merits are not important so I think the article should be kept, just not in the form it is at the moment.

I'd also debate the actual importance of him being referenced in the New York Times and the Cambridge University Press (both of which I recall were passing mentions, correct me if I'm wrong). If wikipedia started including everyone who's been referenced in the New York Times then the site would get out of hand very quickly. Tmwns (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have a personal problem with Dan Schneider, my problem is with him using sock-puppets and wikipedia to massage his ego. Interviewing famous subjects does not give the interviewer equal notability. Page came to my attention because of a) spam links, and b) ridiculous size of article, even now it has been pared down. Yes, I did describe the reviews as "silly" because they are, and of low quality, but that was pertaining to the spam links, rather than anything here, so is irrelevant.


 * " note how he described his film reviews as 'silly'-- he's obviously never actually read one, as they are very in-depth reviews, with many appearing in web publications outside of Cosmoetica."

The above quote shows how this article and the editors is not balanced, and are biased. Essentially Ego-massaging. Spam-links have already been identified as such, this is not the matter being discussed.
 * Self-promoted or not, your point is irrelevant

Being self-Promoted is not irrelevant, because it means the article is not balanced.

Ultimately, does the article need deleted? Perhaps not. Have these edits shown that it needs protection from inflation and needless detail? Unequiviocally. Sock Puppet accounts need removing. Personal preference would be article pared down, then made so only admin, or something, can edit it, to prevent what happened last time from happening again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC) StevenEdmondson (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Only someone with a personal axe to grind would call his reviews 'silly'--again, proving that you've not actually read them. Either way, your personal thoughts on the essays have no bearing on whether or not Schneider deserves mention on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were truly about weeding out 'silliness', the actor/producer Dan Schneider wouldn't be on here for those bits of fluff he's contributed to pop culture. Links to the film reviews aren't spam, because they are relevant to the films in question. And, an interviewer who conducts in-depth interviews with distinguished figures across different disciplines doesn't give the interviewer notability? I wonder what exactly does give an interviewer notability, then.uprightgreen (talk) 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I said equal notability. Do not twist my words.


 * Only someone with a personal axe to grind would call his reviews 'silly'--again,

I did not say that here, nor does it pertain to the matter in question. Also, no it doesn't.
 * proving that you've not actually read them.

No it does not, and I have. This matter is irrelevant to this page however, the links have been deemed spam by admin already. Not by just me. The fact that you've taken such offense at me calling the reviews silly, previously on a different page pertaining to a different matter, suggests that you have a vested personal interest inthe subject, and as such are biased.


 * your personal thoughts on the essays have no bearing on whether or not Schneider deserves mention on Wikipedia.

Agreed. But that's not what I have suggested, it's what you have suggested that I have suggested. StevenEdmondson (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

“Only someone with a personal axe to grind would call his reviews 'silly'--again, proving that you've not actually read them”

Or someone with an opinion different to yours? Of course we all know personal opinions on his work don't matter- lets cut that out. What does matter is that his articles are popping up everywhere on wikipedia and they are certainly not notable enough to be included. Its also the only reason why I've been riled up into actually doing something about it- perhaps if people had been more subtle all of this could have been avoided.

“the actor/producer Dan Schneider wouldn't be on here for those bits of fluff he's contributed to pop culture”

Snobbery should have nothing to do with it. Mr. Schneider may think that because of the topics he writes on he is somehow more worthy than everyone else, but that is not up for debate in why this article should be kept. Tmwns (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This long long rambling back and forth isn't focusing on the main issue, which is the notability of the article's subject. The simple fact is that the article subject meets the WP guidelines on notability for people, which states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." All of these criteria are met with regards to Dan Schneider, as evidenced by the citations in the article. That said, there is obviously an issue with SPAs around this article, so I think the article should remain protected for the near future.--SouthernNights (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with SouthernNights, however the protection I think will need to be permanent. If the article is kept, there is no point keeping it only for SPA's to come all over it again. StevenEdmondson (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Anyone who’s had a whole article written about them by a sister paper of the Village Voice I think is notable enough, not to mention that that was before his website. Shukichisanzawa (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem of SPAs is far worse than I thought. I've deleted as many unnecessary links as I can (around 100)but there are probably more. I'm starting to think that a vast amount of cosmoetica's hits have been a direct result of this outrageous spamming. Whats more, all edits have been done by sock puppet accounts with NO exception. Either they have been anonymous and come from IP addresses starting with 4.230/231, or by accounts that do nothing but link Mr. Schneider's articles. Here is a list of all accounts I have found doing this:

Theovetes Lazarus86 Mathemaxi Ingupper Athenosia Filialprojector Fordhawk Vandenflexor Wallaby Jones Stratuspower88 Mondocanetoomer Rebeccamack SouthernLights Verbaleaux Verdipun Sunstruckglass Alfonsogloriano Ambersoniata UmaPa Deadsandsflashing Anatolikarpantov Corinthiani Chasfagan Lyledag Timesawaste Slopack Tallulahdor Nathanor Landoloch Good Shoestore

and Cop666 who has elongated the Dan Schneider article.

There are probably much more. It is also very likely that all or most of these accounts are Dan Schneider himself. At least 2 of these accounts (Cop666 and IP 4.230.147.227) have shown themselves to be Schneider by arguments on Talk pages and their personal writing style, although neither admitted it. I was in support of the page being kept, but in light of these underhand tactics I'm not too sure if it even deserves one anymore.

"Anyone who’s had a whole article written about them by a sister paper of the Village Voice I think is notable enough, not to mention that that was before his website."

Not really. That article seemed to portray him as a frustrated writer with laughable delusions of grandeur.Tmwns (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So? One could apply the same logic to Ed Wood re: filmmaking, yet few would deny that he’s a notable filmmaker. I do not compare Schneider with Wood, I merely say that the fact that the article portrays him negatively doesn’t negate any notability? How do you think most articles on Hitler portray him? Not that there’s any comparison, but is he also unnotable? Shukichisanzawa (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking to film reviews on pages devoted to films is hardly 'underhanded,' and you've zealously deleted them with no regard for the content of the actual quotes, and how they are relevant to those pages--you've only deleted them because you dislike Schneider. The 'frustrated writer with laughable delusions of grandeur' is another personal, emotion-based slam against Schneider that demonstrates the emotional bias of users Tmwns and StevenEdmonson. The emotionalism of these two is ultimately why their arguments against Schneider should be discounted; their agenda is personal, and is not a neutral assessment of what belongs on Wikipedia. uprightgreen (talk) 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.43.219 (talk)

So you want to ignore all the evidence of underhanded tactics and self-edits just because I've mentioned I'm not too keen on his writing? As I've said, what I think of his writing is irrelevant- what is relevant is the spamming, and the admins agree. I think cosmoetica has now been blackballed from wikipedia because of this. Anyway, I have deleted them because the site is not of notability enough for them to be included - and the sections added not professional enough to deserve place in a Wikipedia article. The argument is not emotion based (although I freely admit, personally, I also think the writing is too poor to be included in wikipedia when most articles consist of rants, snide asides at critics who happen to disagree with Mr Schneider, and a woeful knowledge of film in general). The links are spamming, and the number of sock puppet accounts is enough for the links to be taken down and the article questioned. Stop trying to divert the argument from the points at hand. Tmwns (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, that when I did see reasons for quotes to stay in, I left them as they were. I did this for articles on people who Schneider has interviewed in depth, as the content is not Schneider's own work/words but that of the subject and of interest to people reading the article. I have not just zealously deleted any mention of Schneider I can find, I have judged their relevance and taken the appropriate action. Its unfortunate that about 99% of these came up short, and were merely self-plugging. Tmwns (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no vested personal or emotional problem with DS, spamming with SPA however, is still spamming with SPA. That however, is not the matter this page was intended to discuss. StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven: As I stated earlier, I am not Schneider nor a sockpuppet. Second, as I stated earlier, on the talk page of Schneider, there is only one issue- the two basic criteria of Schneider's notability.

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

'''Schneider passes easily. CITY PAGES, NY Times, Cambridge University Press'''

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]

'''Schneider passes easily. CITY PAGES, NY Times, Cambridge University Press- a lengthy profile, a high recommendation as one of the best sites online, and a lengthy quotation in a TEXTBOOK by one of the world's oldest Academic presses'''

Any other information is irrelevant in regards to the article. The prior deletion attempt was made when Schneider's page contained even less notability.

Manifestly, you have a pathology toward Schneider, as you do toward many of the subjects in your contributions list. I earlier mentioned IMDB- like Wikipedia, that is a site that contains NO new information. It is an aggregator site. Al of its information can be gotten elsewhere, so why link it, unless there is a financial arrangement between the two entities? The fact that I have edited the Schneider page is because, like some other posters say, I find the site a refreshing change from most online places, and accordingly, I followed Wiki sourcing guidelines to the letter. That you do not like the online sources, which included National Public Radio, the Internet Archive, and a number of other independent places, again shows your pathology.

Manifestly, you have gathered a band of ranting editors who are clearly sockpuppeting- a number of the "editors" who have posted on the various discussions here on Schneider have only posted here and nowhere else, just as last time, there was clear sockpuppeteering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob

Here's one of several. This sockpuppet claims to be from Minnesota, which is where the article on Schneider from last decade was written. Now, what are the odds that he/she, and you and your band, are nothing but anti-Schneider sockpuppets?

And I won't even get into the egregious reversions and deletions you've made on many articles you've obsessed over, long before the Schneider imbroglio. Clearly, you have control issues, as well as paranoia issues. That's not an attack, but simply a calm view of the way you've been acting.

Your opinion of Schneider is irrelevant, as he clearly qualifies on the two basic criteria. He also qualifies on most secondary criteria, but they are irrelevant since he is two for two on the Basics.

And to call the placement of links on articles spamming is ludicrous, especially when IMDB, and many other film sites, are relentlessly linked. Schneider's review, or the many other reviews I've seen from websites, newspapers, etc. are naturally, going to "promote" the paper or site, in the general sense. The relevant question is does it add anything?

You've removed relevant information from many articles simply because you've disagreed with it, even if sourced. Similarly, you use the same logic you use here- I don't like that mention, comment, opinion, etc.

So, we see that you and your band are using sockpuppets, you have removed relevant links to the Schneider article, and any objective scan of your "contributions" will show you have a willy-nilly bias against anyone or thing you simply do not "like," to many, many articles. And this is manifestly pro forma in all these sorts of debates.

Let me state, I would not object if all references to websites, blogs, and the like, were removed from Wikipedia. If you and Wikipedia really feel they are not notable. However, if you state that some can stay, then Schneider and his site should stay, at least before cleaning out about ten thousand or so pages of blogs and websites that are less notable in terms of popularity, and have contributed less to independent information, much of which you remove by removing information from the website, and links to articles and interviews from it.

You really are in a bind, Steve. Your massive ego and lack of any real purpose is in conflict with the very rules that Wikipedia lays down, which I followed to the letter.

I pointed to several websites that are far less notable than Schneider's, and their pages are clearly on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of advertisement. I won't even go into the thousands of pages devoted to YouTube celebrities and the like.

"I think cosmoetica has now been blackballed from wikipedia because of this." Another editor even revels in his ignorance. "I have judged their relevance and taken the appropriate action. Its unfortunate that about 99% of these came up short, and were merely self-plugging."

As another pro-keep writer mentioned (above)- and that was not me, nor me as Schneider- although it could be Schneider as the other editor, or you- what link does not promote? Again, it's the sort of promotion, is it merely to advance an understanding of the work at hand, or just to say, "gee, my (blank) is cool!" Schneider's clearly is the former. And the above editor's judgment is not explained. Yet, clearly, IMDB, or Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes links are 100% promotion for their sites, because all of their reviews and information are gathered elsewhere. There simply is no reason to link them. Choose the 3 or 4 best reviews, and let the remainder wither. Metacritic, for example, has no reason to be promoted on Wikipedia if the relevant reviews are available elsewhere. And, many of these aggregator sites are just "blogs' or "websites" too, which means your rationale against Schneider's site has no basis, save that you do not like his site, but you like these other sites.

Obvious bias, obvious sockpuppeteering. I'd say shame on you, but I've seen too many of these arguments (and, yes, I've been involved in other disputes unrelated to Schneider, as have you) to know that folk like you feel none. If you did, these argument and admin pages would be 1/100th the length. Cop 666 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. I have one account, and one account only. Nor do I know of anyone using sock puppet accounts to delete your edits. Show evidence to prove this, not just random claims and waffle.

Second, as I stated earlier, on the talk page of Schneider, there is only one issue- the two basic criteria of Schneider's notability.

Yes, that's exactly what I just said! You've stopped twisting my words, you've taken to rewriting them.

And finally, this has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. Again.

Also, you are Dan Schneider. Obvious because of a) your writing style and b) Usage of the word "Manifestly" all the time.

You really are in a bind, Steve. Your massive ego and lack of any real purpose is in conflict with the very rules that Wikipedia lays down, which I followed to the letter.

Followed to the letter? By sock puppets and spam? Not true. [User:StevenEdmondson|StevenEdmondson]] (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this discussion can go no where/ StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Look. If you can't see the difference between IMDB, Metacritic and your site (yes it is you Mr Schneider - its obvious to anyone who's ever read your work) then I despair and give up. IMDB and Metacritic are massive, world-famous film sites that compile reviews from various sources - your site exists merely to publish your own reviews. IMDB and Metacritic are often checked everyday by film-fans- the former is THE page you go to to look up a film, and the latter to check reviews. This is enough for them to be included. Although the link situation is a different matter - cosmoetica is not a reputable enough site to start linking reviews to every single film you've ever written on, nor are your criticisms reputable enough to slip in to articles. Whats more every single editor who has added links has only added links pertaining to you. You must admit this is very suspicious.

Anyhow - no-one is saying you can't have an article - I think its been established that this page will be kept. What is out-of-order is the extent to which you have extended the article, so much so that it far exceeds pages of the most famous critics of our time, or any other. Can you not see this is unacceptable?

As for your sockpuppet accusations (nice tactic to switch the accusations) - I have little knowledge of any prior disagreements about this page, I wasnt a member when it was debated. Nor has there been a flooding of editors on this page. No editor has called for the page to be deleted, and there has not been a flood of editors agreeing with me. Infact it seems the only other person is StevenEdmondson, and he seems to have a history of editing various articles. So please retract your claims. The only people with SPAs here are you/people who have been linking your stuff. What happened in the last discussion is irrelevant to this one. Tmwns (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Manifestly, you have a pathology toward Schneider, as you do toward many of the subjects in your contributions list.

What are you talking about?

Also, may I respectfully request that Cop666 posts in a succinct a manner as possible. Thanks. The waffle makes it difficult to respond to what he's saying, especially when he's accusing me of things. StevenEdmondson (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think for all intents and purposes, this discussion should end here, with the article remaining under protection. Cop's Sock Puppets and spam links, which have already been identified as such by others, not me, and the subsequent consequences are a discussion for the admins, at another place. NOT here. StevenEdmondson (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 1000%. Arguing with this ranter is a complete waste of time.  It is now up to the admins to ban him for his spamming, for his self-promotion, and for his outrageous and disgusting personal attacks against you and other human beings.  We need to make sure that no more Schneider spam is ever added again to Wikipedia articles from now till the end of time.  We need to make sure he is given a lifetime ban.  Then we will be able to edit his article in any way that we like in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia.  That should show him. Ovenknob (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think this has gone too far now. Steven is right- this discussion should end as soon as possible, the article protected and let the admins deal with the sockpuppetry/spamming going on. Tmwns (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tmwns: Since you are a bit more rational than Steven, let me address you. "I think its been established that this page will be kept. What is out-of-order is the extent to which you have extended the article, so much so that it far exceeds pages of the most famous critics of our time, or any other. Can you not see this is unacceptable? "

At least you recognize Schneider's page meets all criteria. Second, and again, I am not Schneider, I am not one of the delinked editors of edits, and I am not one of the above editors. As I stated, I am a fan of the site, and sought to expand it. I did go too far, I admit, but did so with a purpose; because I had noticed a link to a Schneider article on a film that I had seen before, and which I had read, and saw it missing. I saw another editor- not you or Steven, had delinked it for no good reason, another editor- not the original one who deleted nor restored it, tried to restore it, and as Steven did, delinked it again. It only took a matter of minutes to see that this had been done many times with no rationale. As I had had run-ins in the past with editors, several years ago, I knew that an edit war would not work, so I went to Schneider's page, some weeks ago, and followed the Wiki edit policy and link policy to the letter. You cannot show one single unsourced thing in all the edits I made. I did so so that no one could state that policy was not followed. It was. Its length is open to debate, but I grant you, I threw in some things I didn't give a fart about. here is why.

I did this knowing full well some editor would see the page, and having delinked Schneider's link, would come to his page, and expose themselves and their hypocrisy. Knowing full well that Schneider and his site easily passed notability standards, I knew that you folk would do exactly what you did- delink other links, and try to remove this valuable resource.

As I showed with the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob

This is clearly a sockpuppet. In looking up the earlier deletion attempt, there was also blatant use of sockpuppetry. As in my initial search of Schneider's info, this took no time. But it has shown that you, Steven, the above editor, and a number of others who have delinked, are using sockpuppets. The fact that this editor is dumb enough to reveal that he or she is from Minnesota, the state where Schneider resides, speaks volumes about the arrogance and stupidity of the mission you are on.

'''"We need to make sure he is given a lifetime ban. Then we will be able to edit his article in any way that we like in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia. That should show him."

And this is not evidence of an anti-Schneider bias?'''

From Ovenknob's personal page: ''' LOL !!!

Schneider's loathsome egotistical self-serving self-promotional irrelevant spams have now been wiped completely off Wikipedia !! And they will be wiped off and wiped off and wiped off and wiped off again and again and again no matter how many times he and his sockpuppets try to spam them back on here!'''

Really, no bias?

In short, sometimes you have to being things full boil to expose the blatant biases of some. As stated, I've seen these edit wars, and knew full well that people who act in good faith cannot win, and a look at Steven's edits, as I stated, show full well his biases, long before Schneider. But, as you admit, Schneider and his page and site clearly are notable. That's on the basics. The secondary reasons I could go on with, but I do not have too. I have stated this in length to be unambiguous, and since you clearly like to obfuscate your methods.

Now, I've admitted the page was too long, but said why I added it. I basically sniffed some worms out from under a rock because of their biased and willful mistreatment of work that is among the best I've seen, and done so for wholly biased reasons. Steven has shown a lack of shame.

Let me ask you- can you not be man (or woman) enough to admit that, as I went too far in length, you went too far in this whole folly? I don't know Schneider, I don't give a damn about him as a person, but I find the site a source of much vigor and intellect. The way it was being treated, and still is, is a shame. However, the above user is clearly a sockpuppet- be it Steven or a friend, and clearly has an anti-Schneider bias, and clearly is likely one of Schneider's numerous enemies for some reason or another.

If you cannot see that this, and the earlier AFD show that Schneider has irrational people who hate, and seem to stalk him, then you are not being honest.

And as for IMDB- and I admit I followed their formula for the Cosmoetica section. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodfellas

Notice the info box with cast and crew info? All of that info is available at many other sites online. It is redundant to mention IMDB, or any other site, since that information is not sourced from them, it's available to the public on the back of a DVD box. Therefore, the only reason for the IMDB link is because Wikipedian editors feel that fans of the film might want to read a bunch of immature losers who spend 24/7 at a site bitch about nothing. Oh wait, that is Wikipedia.

Lastly, thanks for thinking I'm him, but I do not care for poetry, only film, which is how I found his site, through another website BTW. But, when you and Steven claim that I'm Schneider, because you can judge writing, and yet you make such silly edits as the one a day ago, where you claimed Schneider's sources needed citation, and you left the citation in below, well, can you blame me for laughing at your claimed critical skills?

Now, can I ask, which of us should start the Cosmoetica page- you, me, or Steven?Cop 666 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Stop this silliness. I am not a sockpuppet, stop saying this or prove it. My previous edits do not show a bias. How do you mean, most of them are small edits pertaining to Kate Bush or Ulysses? StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL!! If you think you are in the right, Dan, then all you have to do is start reposting all of the hundreds of self-promotional links about yourself that you've been adding to hundreds of Wikipedia articles, links which I and others have only now just finished in completely wiping off here.  Go ahead, try it, Dan.  Try reposting even ONE of them.  Put your little fingers on your keyboard right now and try it.  The admins are looking for you now.  Go ahead and put your little fingers on the keys.  A big admin hammer is going to come slamming down on them and it is going to hurt.  Go ahead.  Just try to spam again.  Just try it.  No, you don't have the guts to try it now, because you know that YOU ARE IN THE WRONG. Ovenknob (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot see that this, and the earlier AFD show that Schneider has irrational people who hate, and seem to stalk him, then you are not being honest.

I was not involved in the earlier AfD.StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting slightly ridiculous now.

At least you recognize Schneider's page meets all criteria

Well, I'm undecided upon that. I don't think the mentions he has are of massive importance, theyre all mainly passing mentions at best, but I am happy letting the page exist if the admins think so.

Second, and again, I am not Schneider

Yes you are. Or you're someone trying to copy Schneider's writing style. Please don't lie.

You cannot show one single unsourced thing in all the edits I made

True, but then again I could set up a page on my life and source it well. It still doesn't make it valid.

I did this knowing full well some editor would see the page, and having delinked Schneider's      link, would come to his page, and expose themselves and their hypocrisy. Knowing full well that Schneider and his site easily passed notability standards, I knew that you folk would do exactly what you did- delink other links, and try to remove this valuable resource.

This is clearly convoluted nonsense. I knew nothing of your site up until this month when I saw the spamming going on. Perhaps the fact other people have already taken issue with it might have given you a clue: give up and stop spamming.

As I showed with the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ovenknob

This is clearly a sockpuppet.

Most probably. If he's serious he also needs some help. I'm actually undecided as to whether he's a complete idiot or a ploy of Schneider's to make people opposing him look irrational. Whatever it is, he is obviously not a puppet of Steven's nor mine. I live in Britain btw.

Really, no bias?

Well not from the people who have commented sanely on this page. Stop using this strawman to detract from our arguments.

and a look at Steven's edits, as I stated, show full well his biases, long before Schneider.

What bias? What are you talking about?

The way it was being treated, and still is, is a shame.

No its not a shame. What is a shame is 30 seperate accounts existing totally to put cosmoetica links into film pages. You have been called out on it. Stop complaining.

Notice the info box with cast and crew info? All of that info is available at many other sites online. It is redundant to mention IMDB, or any other site, since that information is not sourced from them, it's available to the public on the back of a DVD box. Therefore, the only reason for the IMDB link is because Wikipedian editors feel that fans of the film might want to read a bunch of immature losers who spend 24/7 at a site bitch about nothing. Oh wait, that is Wikipedia.

What goes on on the imdb forums is totally unimportant. What is important is on IMDB you can get FULL cast listings, multiple release dates, awards, and technical information as well as all the reviews and discussion that comes with it. IMDB is a specialist filmsite and one of the most important and viewed sites on the internet. Now please...can you not see how cosmoetica is entirely different?

But, when you and Steven claim that I'm Schneider, because you can judge writing, and yet you make such silly edits as the one a day ago, where you claimed Schneider's sources needed citation, and you left the citation in below, well, can you blame me for laughing at your claimed critical skills?

I never made such an edit. Looking at the history of the edits, it seems that Steven did not delete the passages because they had no citation, but because they were unnecessary. The way you are taking this so personally has now left no doubt in my mind that you are the subject of the article.

Now, can I ask, which of us should start the Cosmoetica page- you, me, or Steven?

You know well that the answer to that is neither. Cosmoetica does not deserve a page seperate from yours. Its one or the other Dan. Tmwns (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that in bringing this whole thing up a few days ago, I've started off some kind of personal war that has been going on for some time. Please stop it. It's childish, delusional and not the sort of behaviour that should occur on wikipedia. This has nothing to do with emotional attacks, or personal grievances - just with sorting out an article that has gotten out of hand. That is all. Tmwns (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article may need some restructuring and reorganization, but the sources it provides establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was ready to leave this well alone, but now I have serious enough doubts over the notability of the subject. First of all, the sockpuppeting as shown on the Admin Noticeboard is more widespread than first thought - theyve been clogging up articles with links, and have slowly been adding to this page. Now those links have been deleted, new SPAs have been adding them back. Articles have been deleted for much less. Also note that all the 'Keeps' have been made by sockpuppets, with the notable exception of Southern Nights.

Which leads me on to my next point. Now I don't have any doubts about Southern Nights' motives in creating this article - he/she seems to be a bit of a legend on wikipedia, but I do think he/she is wrong on this one. I've looked at the links and this is what I think. First of all, the City Pages article never makes out the subject to be a local celebrity (at best), and a local troublemaker (at worst). Nothing is ever mentioned about his notability. Secondly, the Village Voice article mentions him passingly in a joke horoscope article. Whilst not denying the notability of the publication, this is surely not a valid reference. Thirdly, the New York Times reference I think is the most reliable, although Cosmoetica is mentioned briefly amidst 20 or so other obscure internet pages. Do all these have wiki articles too? Theres also the Cambridge University Press, but the passage in that is a few lines long, and merely an excerpt from a review he wrote. Not anything of substance about him. Also note that Schneider later wrote an article on this complaining at how brief a mention he received (among other things). All in all, I dont think this is nearly enough to merit an article on wikipedia.

The most important evidence though is that though Dan Schneider and cosmoetica seem to get enough hits on google, a trawl through all those references show that the vast, vast majority are of articles on his website/other websites he has written for/blog entries where he keeps his real name/self promotion on other sites and various other mentions which are merely self-plugging. In the first 10 pages of google, I barely found any secondary mentions of him at all. No reviews of his site/ no reviews of his writing/ no reviews of his poetry. All those I did find were negative, but those were few and far between.

So all in all, it seems as though this writer's 'notability' is merely self-plugging, and the spamming on wikipedia seems to only be one branch of that. Whatever the merits of Schneider's writing, or the earnestness of Southern Nights to introduce obscure writers to Wikipedia, I am now of the mind that this writer doesn't really deserve a page at all. After all, would a notable writer really go to these lengths to clog wikipedia with his links and opinions? Thoughts anyone? Tmwns (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CCC and WP:STICK. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (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.