Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis Schneiderman


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Davis Schneiderman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost nothing resembling a reference or claim of notability. He's clearly a writer, but nothing here shows that he's a _notable_ writer. When a BLP article is based on such powerful sources as his own YouTube channel, rather than the robust 3rd party sources we require, then it's clearly failing to demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm having a hard time finding sources myself, but I am finding stuff to suggest that he is rather well thought of in his niche. It's just that his type of writing isn't the sort of thing that gets a lot of mainstream press. I see where he's name dropped a ton and I see where some of his stuff is republished in various books.  I'm just not sure that this would help him pass WP:AUTHOR beyond a doubt.Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. I think the Victoria Advocate source (which is in-depth and far from his local area) as well as a published book review that I just added (which is in-depth about one of his works) are enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. He clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC. And he appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Getting mentioned in a modest feature article in small publication like the Victoria Advocate doesn't confer notability. Many of the other places he's mentioned are just glancing mentions and/or in rather obscure sources. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I helped create this page some years ago, and occasionally visit or add. I am not a regular wikipedia editor, so please don't judge the subject based upon any problems with the articles or its sources.I also don't know, I guess, how to properly add this stuff, so I'll just lay it out here for now. I think, for instance, that I added Schneiderman's YouTube page at some point, not realizing how the notability works, etc.  Anyway, Schneiderman is certainly an author of note in the indie publishing world that also overlaps with academia. He is a board member for the [&NOW Festival], and arranges their locations. Here is an article from Time-Out Chicago on the Lake Forest version. . These have included the Sorbonne, and, coming up, UC Boulder. . He is the head of Lake Forest College Press and runs the Plonsker Prize, which is one of the largest writing prizes in the country with no entry fee, $10,000.  He has collaborated with [DJ Spooky] . He has been on [Chicago Tonight] talking about college tips, and he blogs for the Huffington Post .  He is a noted scholar on William S. Burroughs, having edited the book about Burroughs mentioned on this page. He also contributed to the Naked Lunch @50 book, wrote the Burroughs entry for The Companion To Twentieth-Century Literature , and writes elsewhere on Burroughs (here, in a review, for instance ). I suppose none of this is the same as being Jonathan Safran Foer or whomever, but Schneiderman _is_ a figure in the small-press and academic world. Here he is at the Chicago Writer' Conference at the Tribune Tower . I've seen reviews of his work in the major small-press outlets, American Book Review and Rain Taxi, for instance. I am not sure how to best add this sort of stuff into the article, so am open to any advice or further discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediahash (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - he seems notable enough as an academic editor, also full prof at respectable liberal-arts college. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per David Eppstein. Our notability criteria are not meant to measure a subject's overall importance alone, but are more inclusive: if somebody is important enough to have extensive impact, they should definitely have an article, but so should anybody to whom enough information has been paid to write a proper article (this is the gist of things like WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG). The subject appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. Ray  Talk 03:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not the strongest case.  But there is enough there IMHO on which to base a keep !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2013 (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.