Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric D. Snider (second 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 no consensus. I admit that this is borderline, and that the original article was primarily intended for self-promotion. However, it has since been rewritten, and as such the arguments from the original AFD, for the most part, do not apply. By extension, a comment made prior to said rewrite is used as the primary basis for deletion, and it is equally inapplicable.--SB | T 02:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric D. Snider

This article was originally deleted through this AfD. A DRV consensus decided to overturn the deletion and relist for new consideration. While everyone admired the thoroughness and thoughtful of the previous AfD's closer, consensus held that WP:SPAs had unduly influenced the debate, and that the course of discussion might have changed near the end of the debate. Please consult both the previous AfD and the DRV before commenting here. This debate will be semiprotected to curb spamming. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:VSCA. Blatant self-promotion abuse of Wikipedia. Minor film critic, minor comic musician. I don't see any claims to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per original AfD, WP:V, WP:BIO, etc. See also Snide Remarks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I just don't see a strong case for WP:BIO here. If Keep is the consensus thought this article needs a good hard edit. I've rarely seen more blatent misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes...--Isotope23 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Wildthing61476 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I requested the deletion review as I feel the original article can be rewritten to satisfy the concerns voiced here and on the original AfD. I plan to perform this rewrite within the next 48 hours; if participants in this discussion could withhold judgment until that window of opportunity has passed I would greatly appreciate it. Alanyst 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Article has been rewritten. Please revisit your comments if you have already given input above. If you feel the article needs improvement but satisfies WP:BIO and WP:VSCA, please give input on the article's talk page. If you still think it qualifies for deletion, please indicate so in order to show that you have taken the new version of the article into consideration. Thanks! Alanyst 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He's not notable.--CyberGhostface 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note -- The above comment was made prior to my rewrite. Alanyst 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

*Neutral pending Alanyst's rewrite. --Aaron 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Voting below after Alanyst's rewrite.

• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article passes WP:BIO on two counts, (notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events, multiple non-trivial published works,) for both his appearance on Dr Demento and the Paramoun Studios controversy. --Roninbk _{t c #} 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every item in the news media is encyclopedically notable. Much material even from well known mainstream news sources is not encyclopedically notable. The Dr. Demento reference is unsourced and may well be a trivial mention. The significance of even a substantial mention on that show may also be contested Bwithh 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Published author with multiple works. That alone should be reason. --NThurston 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every author is encyclopedically notable. Take a look at 25 cent bargain bin at the discount bookstore next time you pass one. Bwithh 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw some Shakespeare in there last time I looked.

But that's a very subjective (hence POV) interpretation of notability. I think our general policy is to trust publishers to decide what's worth publishing and what's not, which makes it more objective. Having multiple published books makes someone notable by definition. Period. I don't know what ruler you would use to determine who is a "minor writer." At a minimum, his books sold very well regionally, and he was very well-known locally. --NThurston 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bwithh. --Bill.matthews 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Distinctly minor writer who got his not-even-fifteen-minutes of fame by being interviewed briefly on public radio. Meh (and I speak as a regular listener of On The Media). --Calton | Talk 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The re-write addresses very well the "self-promotion" problem. The other major issue raised is notability. By all objective measures, his published work - long-running newspaper column and several published books, meet the usual notability standard for authors. Like him or not, he's notable. --NThurston 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vyse (talk • contribs) 19:39, October 3, 2006.
• Delete. Despite Alanyst's rewrite, I'm afraid I'm still not convinced of his notability. The article still has some WP:V issues as well. --Aaron 20:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Might not satisfy you on the notability aspect, but I sourced the Dr. Demento stuff to improve verifiability. Are there other WP:V concerns? Alanyst 06:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has enough aspects of notability for different reasons to, in my mind, amount to being notable despite the fact that no individual source of notability meets WP:BIO. (I discount the Dr. Demento bit, as unsourced, but if reliably and independently sourced that would be a clear keep per WP:MUSIC all by itself.) GRBerry 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Dr. Demento statements are now sourced. Alanyst 06:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The sourcing for the Dr. Demento information is on a student's personal account on Indiana University's computers. Not a primary source. One of his books does come up on Amazon.com, but is not in stock and appears to never have been, given the lack of information. Amazon lists the publisher as BYU, his former university. Do regional-interest books published by universities establish notability? Vic sinclair 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clicking on the Playlists link from www.drdemento.com takes you to the archive at the Indiana University page. This is part of the official page. I had to verify that fact myself, as it looked funny to me too. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry's comments and Alanyst's rewrite. The Paramount banning was certainly newsworthy and got nationwide coverage. Agne 07:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don't believe he meets the notability standard. Eusebeus 15:30, 8 October 2006 (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.