Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schneider (writer) (3rd 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. Even discarding the WP:SPA votes, there is clear agreement that the article should be kept. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (writer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

From reading this article, I cannot see any reason whatsoever for why this person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. For instance, I don't see any awards (e.g., a nomination for some kind of writing award) or sales informtion (for instance, a best-selling novel or book of poetry) that would indicate to me that this person is noteworthy. Furthmore, I don't see any evidence that he has ever published anything. Although it was at one point argued that this individual has a lot of "hits" on Google, I am not sure that this means anything. In fact, his first and last names are both pretty common. I would suspect that Google is simply dragging up a whole slew of sites that really have nothing to do with this individual. Without a best-selling book or an award of some kind, it is hard to believe that this individual is worthy of a Wikipedia article, something that very few people should have. --Boab (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above reason for deletion was previously placed on the wrong AfD page. This is actually the 3rd nomination for this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This person may be borderline notable, but it really is not good practice to nominate an article for deletion a third time without some very good reason, see WP:STICK. This is the first time I have ever seen an article nominated for deletion a third time, in my time I have only ever once nominated an article for deletion a second time, and I explained that there were serious reasons why I did so. PatGallacher (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And how exactly do you define "borderline notable" PatGallacher? Again, for every page with more references media sources than this one there are literally a thousand with substantially less. I'd say Schneider's references are in the top 10-15% of all bio pages. Iceborercity (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I used to edit the Steven Pinker page some years back and saw much of the same sort of retributive nonsense between squabbling editors with vendettas here noted. I gave up on Wikipedia after Pinker's interview with Schneider was removed from the Steven Pinker page even though the interview (firsthand information directly from the source) corrected misinformation that was posted about Pinker, a terrific man and human being I've met several times over the years, and whom I know was quite annoyed over the interview's not being linked. A friend of mine sourced several quotes and all were removed. The page was even blanked as "Non-Notable". Steven Pinker non-notable because he was interviewed by this man? That's how I discovered Schneider's website. I find it ironic that an entity (Wikipedia) whose founders constantly whine over it's not being taken seriously by and in the media, because it's only an "online" site shows the same bias against Schneider and many other fine websites. This is the 21st Century, people, and the Internet is only the most powerful medium mankind has come up with, so, no, if someone becomes notable on it he or she cannot really be "notable" according to Wikipedia. It seems that this Southern Nights has made a fine entry that is constantly being sabotaged by peopel who just hate the man it's about. Hmmm...Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Upton Sinclair were all reviled in their day, too. Another editor made the point that Schneider has print publications but the better point made is that it's FAR more impressive that folks like Steven Pinker, Pete Hamill, Roger Ebert, Desmond Morris, Jack Horner, and a number of other well known and respected people in writing and science WANT to be published and/or associated with the man. If he is so "non-notable" then why do the media and well known and respected people gravitate toward him and his site. This one is easy. And while you're at it, people, maybe lift this ridiculous ban against linking interviews so that the real and CORRECT information on people who are NOTABLE, according to your navel-gazing celebrity worship, can have ACCURATE information about them online? Isn't accuracy in information what a "REAL" encycopedia strives for? Mindofsteven (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC) — Mindofsteven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep Why is this even in question? As others have mentioned there are numerous well-sourced references in media (NPR, New York Times, City Pages, textbooks, Cambridge University, Roger Ebert and the Chicago Sun-Times, etc.), the website is obviously huge and influential, and a quick look at this and older deletion attempts shows a clear bias against this writer for no discernible reason except that like Boab these folks a) cannot read or understand references sourced and b) simply dislike the man. There are literally thousands of pages on minor actors, celebrity wannabes, dubious personal information, writers who have no sources but pages maintained by friends, and these have never been put up for a single AfD. It's pretty obvious that Boab and his cohorts (sockpuppets) simply want to waste time and bandwidth. I originally typed keep, but let me make that a strong one just to make a point. Iceborercity (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As far as I am aware, there is no limit on the number of times an article can be nominated for deletion. In this case, it has been two years since the article was last evaluated, and a lot of changes have been made in Wikipedia policy since then. A further problem with the first two nominations was that these discussions were clearly full sockpuppets and anonymous editors. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most ridiculous Wikipedia entries I have ever seen. While this article makes the claim that this individual is a highly influential poet worthy of 5 pages of writing, he hasn't published a single thing. Are you kidding me! Boab (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep How many writers publish books no one reads or has heard of? How many writers or critics get called "ideal' by the dean of film criticism? If you were a scientist and had a choice of being admired and backed by Albert Einstein or having a paper published in an obscure journal which would you choose? Seems highly detailed in its references even beyond Roger Ebert.Ebertfan (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Ebertfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * STRONG KEEP I agree with Ebertfan. I found out of Schneider's website via the article on him by Mr. Ebert and find his website quite fascinating. I have referenced it many times over the past few months, and have even enjoyed perusing the Wikipedia article. I am not up on all the proper terminology and procedures here but having used Wikipedia on numbers of occasions for factoids on films I can say that Schneider's article seems to be far more well organized and detailed than most on many films. It would be a shame to lose such a resource so I vote yes to keep it. Cheers. Bbrents (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Bbrents (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Addendum: I just looked over the references and PBS lists him as a source in a television show brochure and he was on NPR being interviewed. If I can I would like to change my vote to a stronger keeping of the article. Thank you. Bbrents (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article meets all the notability guidelines. Dan Schneider has been the cover profile story of a well-known publication (City Pages, a sister paper of the Village Voice) and has been mentioned in the New York Times, on public radio, and in a number of other media outlets. His writings have been published in a number of magazines while his literary criticism has been printed in places including a Cambridge University Press anthology. His film criticism has been praised by Roger Ebert, who called Schneider a "considerable critic." The article clearly establishes notability. As PatGallacher said, it is extremely rare to bring an article up for a 3rd AfD, especially when the consensus of the previous AfDs established the article's notability. If anything, this subject's notability has increased since the last AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep' Easy vote. Popular website, noted in books, textbooks, and major news outlets, and the most popular critic in America devotes a lengthy article to him and praises him. Did the nominator even look at the referenced independent sources in the article? There are thousands of vanity pages on the site. This is not one of them. Turkmenpolar (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I am no fan of the man but he clearly has enough references and most of them are thoroughly vetted from the admin named above.Olliekamm (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Boab, why does it matter? The WIKI guidelines state that there needs to be outside verification for a page to exist. Dan Schneider has that via lots of online publications, Roger Ebert, Cambridge University Press, City Pages (which provided most of the biographical material for this page), and others. So, are you against this page because it doesn't meet Wiki standards, or for personal reasons? If the former, you need to make your case; if the latter, then sorry, I guess.


 * If there are Pulitzer Prize winners with pages 20% of this size, that's unfortunate; perhaps you need to track down some of the authors of those pages and ask them to offer more info, or do it yourself. Pointing to the deficiencies of other entries doesn't prove your point, only the fact that Wiki sometimes lacks critical, in-depth info, something entries the size of Dan Schneider's rectify.


 * You now conflate print publications with influence. Sorry, but Schneider not only has print publications, but lots of independent verification and a website with over 4 billion page hits, a site that includes long, in-depth interviews with MANY well-known writers, who thus add to publication credits by writing on his site. If writers with 1/10 of Schneider's exposure and influence (Pultizer winners or not) deserve a page, why doesn't he? Stop wasting people's time, Boab. ObeyTheSloth (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — ObeyTheSloth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KEEP The deleter mentions sockpuppets and the like, but the reason that there are many people like me with only a few edits or less is because the ant-Schneider forces ban you if you even stand up for an article or link. I had an old account under this name that was banned merely because a few times I tried to add back deleted links from vandals. I had no chance to even fight against it. Schneider is very well linked and researched in this article. I cannot even link to an article on Schneider's site because they have banned that merely because it is popular and many fans have linked to it. But here is the text URL of an interesting piece where a Wiki vandal is mocking Schneider and admits to vandalism: www.cosmoetica.com/B843-DES672.htm#Addendum But none of that matters because the article meets all standards. 2belamorreia (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — 2belamorreia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I am not a SPA. Here is my edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/belamorreia I even stated that I was targeted for banning simply because I fought some vandalism on some pages. Why are people targeted if they support good, valid links by this writer? Please, do not slander me as a SPA. Why was I banned without cause? My vote counts, and I have a 2 year record of edits. I only used this name because my previous one was banned without warning.2belamorreia (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks well enough referenced and seems to have enough claim to notability. What other people have pages for (or perhaps shouldn't have...) is irrelevant. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Have seen this page before and well sourced. Punderfuller (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP The last few times it was nominated, it was kept, and that was apparently before the Ebert endorsement. 67.234.192.167 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, notable enough. Dayewalker (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep easily passes notability standards. Pellejuanner (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Dan Schneider runs a very influential website, he is approached by readers on a daily basis seeking his guidance and critique in poetry, or -in my personal case- seeking his expertise in movie criticism. His interviews series continues to be different from all the trash found in the media these days. His cinema critique has been very recently praised by R.Ebert himself. I'm surprised for even nominating his page for deletion, especially after I read the rationale behind the request, if useless prizes and sociopathic media attention are the criteria then delete every single cultural figure Wikipedia mentions and keep Paris-Hilton-like figures. This unfounded deletion request is another reason to be disappointed at this whole internet-based media system. Deadbeesonacake (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Deadbeesonacake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.