Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David N. Snyder, Ph.D.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David N. Snyder, Ph.D.

8 Google hits for "David N. Snider" buddhist. Fairly much non-notable. Denni☯ 01:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Note: David Snyder, Ph.D. is also up for deletion. - Nat Krause 19:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "David N. Synder" doesn't have much more luck (about 23, mainly genaology sites). Delete. Hedley 02:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN K1Bond007 05:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Xcali 05:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As an unpublished author, I'm loath to chop such an arty. No dog in this hunt.Fabartus 06:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Finally, "David N. Snyder" gets 40, and quite a few of them are about this guy. Still though, not notable, delete. --platypeanArchcow 06:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and most authors who use 'Ph.D.' in their title haven't got a doctorate from a recognised university anyway. Average Earthman 10:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unpublished and therefore not notable author. Anyone can write a book and distribute it. Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above CDC (talk) 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unpublished is only the start of it. 99% of published authors are not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, and pretty much all of them (if that's all they are) are. Encyclopedias are not the phone book, not even Amazon.com. Geogre 19:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE. At this point, all "delete" votes were removed by 24.127.147.7. --Carnildo 21:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Phil Welch 23:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep The comments made above for deletion have no basis or evidence. This person has a Ph.D. from a recognised university, The Univ. of Texas, which by itself is still not sufficient, but his work in the Buddhist world is enormous, but you would probably need to be Buddhist to know that. That is why he is listed ONLY in the Buddhist section of Wikipedia. He makes no money from tens of thousands of book sales, but if you are not Buddhist, I know that may not mean much to you. Again, that is why he should ONLY be listed in the Buddhist section.Maitreya11 17:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: User's first edit. --Carnildo 19:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.