Deletion of Dan Schneider (writer)

Comment: On the one hand, this doesn't feel encyclopedic enough... but on the other hand, I hesitate to pull the trigger on a page with multiple independent sources. There are certainly unverifiable biography statements on this page, see . But I'm not ready to delete this altogether
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Ummm ... "all" you can find is that he runs a website?  Then you either didn't read the article or didn't pay attention when you did.  The New York Times?  NPR?  A sister pub of the Village Voice?  This article has verifiable sources, and some genuinely significant ones to boot.  As far as your screed against Alabamaboy goes, allow me to quote from : "In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor."  There is nothing about this article showing the use (never mind the abuse) of admin powers to create; any editor could have done it.  Presuming sockpuppets have been used to update the article (a huge if), there is nothing in policy prohibiting or even discouraging the same.  Possibly there is some reason for this smoke screen, but I can't figure it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: This scrapes the bottom of the barrel on , but "The person has created a ... collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries?"  I'd say he's met that.  (And since the page was created by an admin whose created a number of literature-related pages, calling it a "vanity" page is a bit much of a stretch.  That info took me about thirty seconds to discover
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)