Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Werner

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Shawn Werner
Appears to be a vanity page. I can't find anything about this person except on his own website. Finbarr Saunders 10:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Googling for "Shawn Werner" garners 164 hits, none of the top ten seem to be this Shawn Werner. "Shawn Werner" + poet gived an outstanding three hits. Grutness...  wha?  10:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed - delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Diasagree. This is a real poet and have made clear with further information. --Tinsley79 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Tinsley79 (I see you've made your first contributions today). Does this "International Journal of Poetry" have a website? --Finbarr Saunders 12:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact they do...... http://www.poetry.com
 * Slight typographical error on my part.
 * As you can see, if you do a search for Shawn Werner at poetry.com you will find a half dozen of his works. This poet should deffinately not be deleted from the wiki database and deserves to be recognized. That's my case, in a nutshell.
 * I note that poetry.com "features over 5.1 million poets!". --Finbarr Saunders 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Poetry.com is essentially a scam for the talentless and gullible. Bjsiders 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. More information has been added. --Tinsley79 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Tinsley79, you can easily "sign" and date your comments here by putting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your message. If you do that, it allows everyone else to see exactly who's posting what, and avoids double-counting of votes. --Finbarr Saunders 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Following Finbarr Saunders note, I'd consider having some poems on poetry.com as being as notable as being a regular Wikipedia contributor. Average Earthman 16:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn -PlainSight 17:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not all vanity publications should be discounted, but those from the notorious poetry.com people should be. Sdedeo 20:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poetry.com is the very definition of a vanity site. No other assertion of notability. --MCB 20:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Artist has clearly shown effort with a released CD and clothing line. The popularity may be minor, but still garners attention for the efforts shown. --Tinsley79 23:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (User has already voted, above.  Welcome to Wikipedia, Tinsley79!  Please don't think me rude for striking the duplicate votes - I just don't want the closing admin to miscount.  This isn't Chicago, so you don't have to vote more than once.  Feel free to continue to comment, though. Nandesuka 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete, nn, vanity. — Phil Welch 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr. Werner had the first poem published in The International Who's Who in Poetry and out of four included in the first section, he was the only one from the US. --Tinsley79 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (See above --Nandesuka 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete. Being one of 5.1 million poetry.com listees could be seen (caviling on Average Earthman's comment) as one-tenth as significant as being one of the almost half-million Wikipedia editors.  Does one pay for inclusion in The International Who's Who in Poetry, like the many Who's Who of American High School Students publications?  Does it evince any notability beyond "got a friend to nominate him"?  Barno 15:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity and possible a joke page ---CH (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.