Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela E Schreier


 * 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   delete. — Jake   Wartenberg  20:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniela E Schreier

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

I removed a speedy tag, but I don't think anything here is actually notable,. The book is in only 4 US libraries, and does not seem to have any actual reviews.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep mentioned on MSNBC and USA Today Very well referenced article. Flagged for rescue. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Being mentioned in articles hardly meets notability criteria.   ttonyb1  (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Ikip (Yes, I know that he !voted keep). Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per sources located by other editors in good faith and the clean up and improvements done to the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Two notable newspapers believer the doctor notable enough to question and quote. The first one has plenty of coverage, her saying what's on her mind, and the second just quotes her briefly as an expert on the subject of genetic bullies.   D r e a m Focus  18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Real world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability. I also do not believe that being quoted in an article is the same as being "the subject of published secondary source material."  ttonyb1  (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Way too early, perhaps later... --Crusio (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have seen the comments below and maintain my delete vote per Dori and Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Further sourcing is available per Dallas News, USA Weekend, CBS News, MSNBC, CBS News. That her opinion is sought and she is interviewed and spoken of in reliable sources meets inclusion criteria. If that's not enough to meet WP:GNG,  Dr. Schreier is
 * featured in Mansfield News Journal, Mansfield (OH), September 2001
 * featured in Impact Weekly, Dayton Magazine, September Edition 2001
 * featured in the News Journal "Stepping Out", Wilmington (OH), September 2001
 * featured in Call & Post Newspaper, Columbus (OH), September 2001
 * featured in The Vindicator, Youngstown (OH), October edition 2001
 * she was live on CBS Radio and 96.1 WJYE-FM, Buffalo in an interview with CBS public affairs, October 18th, 2001
 * she was live on "The Morning Show" (Lite Rock Wake Up Call) on WLRQ - 99.3 FM, Melbourne, Florida, hosted by Dave and Mindy, November 12th, 2001
 * she was live on The Irreverent News Show on WNCJ 1360 AM, Philadelphia's Renaissance Radio, hosted by Brian Greenberg, November 15th, 2001
 * she was live on The Kevin Schenk Show on WSYR, Buffalo, NY, hosted by Kevin Schenk, December 26th, 2001
 * she was live on The Morning News Watch - K-News Radio WNUU, Las Vegas, hosted by Andy Viera, December 31st, 2001
 * she was live on The Morning Show on WGVU, Grand Rapids, MI,hosted by Fred Martino, January 2nd, 2001
 * she was live on The Pete Summer Show on WLAD, Danbury, CT, hosted by Pete Summer, January 4th, 2002
 * she discussed "How to Downsize Your Life" on Monk and Kelly in the Morning on KSRC, Kansas City, KS, hosted by Jonathan Monk and Diana Kelly, January 10th, 2002
 * she was on on "Reach for the Stars" hosted by Lee Schwartz on 1360AM WNJC, Philadelphia, PA, January 12th, 2002
 * she was on the "Bright Moment" radio show hosted by Ed Smith on WRPR, 90.3 FM, Mahwah, NJ, April 9th, 2002
 * etc., etc., etc. In my humble opinion, it's enough... and there's more. Ikip is correct. She meets guideline. With respects to DGG, the one book does not do it, but all the rest seems to. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * It appears all the "appearances" and listed "publications" are from the subject's own website. I looked at a couple and was unable to find independent support.
 * According to the Doctor's website, it appears most of the publication references are very minor.
 * I also do not believe that being quoted in an article is the same as being "the subject of published secondary source material."
 * Popularity does not equal notability. ttonyb1  (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant, independent sources about her. Epbr123 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I just spent a bunch of time researching her and trying to clean up the article. This one's deletable, as (so far as I can tell), almost nothing has been written about her. All that stuff above is just her as a media talking head who's willing to give juicy quotes diagnosing people she's never met (possibly against the APA code of ethics, but that's another issue entirely). There's simply no information from reliable sources with which to write an article. And btw, it's not one book, it's two—but they're both self-published, which imo counts as zero. And that's not to mention that this article was written by its subject. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:PROF, and also fails WP:BIO/GNG, is not the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails everything. Those arguing keep are misinterpreting the guideline; "coverage" in sources is incidental, she is not the subject.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. No significant, independent sources thus fails WP:GNG.Location (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a talking head may be an indication towards notability, but doesn't demonstrate it. Quantpole (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability every way I look at it. And listing local radio appearences doesn't really make her look more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (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.