Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-cnn


 * 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; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD. WP:SOAP issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing. Sandstein (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-cnn

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Definitely WP:SOAP, with questionable WP:N and WP:SOURCES issues. Beidabaozi (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC) WP:ATP Beidabaozi (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - WP:COATRACK is highly relevant here. This article is not really about the website, it is about Western coverage of Chinese issues, especially Tibet. The linked articles, for example, are not about the website, but about China's government's unhappiness with said news coverage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is written in an NPOV manner, covering views from opposing sides, so I don't see how it is in violation of WP:SOAP. And apparently it is a notable topic, having been referred to by CCTV, CNN, Der Spiegel, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added four links to the External Links section: Xinhua News, World Tribune, SBS, and the PRC Embassy in the US.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong Keep The website appears notable with coverage by both CNN and Der Spiegel - so the article does have reliable third party sources. Possibly some clean-up is required but that is a seperate issue. Nick Connolly (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) + Multiple hits in a wide range of major news outlets.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per OrangeMike. Xdenizen (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per nom BoL (Talk) 04:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment May I ask under which criteria do you suggest it for speedy deletion? As far as I am concerned, WP:SOAP is not a legitimate reason. Herunar (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The article was originally speedy deleted (by me), as it was nothing but an unsupported attack on news stations - essentialy libel. However in its current format it is most certainly not speedy deletable. Pedro : Chat  07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

comment to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are not articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a WP:COATRACK; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in reliable sources. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the CNN article does refer to the website by name and refer to the allegations made by the website. Likewise the Der Spiegel article. There has also be coverage on the SBS tv channel website in Australia []. The articles say what the website is, and name the website. Hence we can verify that 1. the website exists 2. it does carry Chinese criticism of western media and 3. it is notable enough to have multiple (if short) references to it in established media. Coatrack issues, and style issues are editorial issues not deletion issues.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-read WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial..." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * yes...and the sources are in detail enough that no original research is needed to extract the content. There is a website, it is called Anti-CNN, it does cover Chinese critcism of Western media coverage. All of that is easily verified from reliable third party sources.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't constitute notability. Nobody is disputing that the website exists; so does my talkpage, and my blog. But neither my blog nor my talkpage is notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your point? You argued that there is no significant coverage, then upon hearing that there is significant coverage, you argue that it still does not constitute notability. Does CCTV, the largest media source in mainland China, not cement its notability by interviewing the website's creator directly? Of course there are sources which only mention it passingly - it's how every independent movement gained recognition. Devoting a whole article to the website is pointless because it neglects the other parallel movements - much like the case in YouTube phenomenons. Herunar (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)
 * But if CNN, The Wshington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel and goodness knows how many other diverse major news outlets where all name-checking you and your blog, then yup, your blog would be notable. This blog isn't very notable and WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK are issues but they are editorial issues not deletion issues. Nick Connolly (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per OrangeMike.-- RyRy5  Talk to RyRy   04:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete or Merge Merge or Weak Keep mainly per User:Orangemike with regard to WP:COATRACK. But this article does have some relevant information about Chineses' reaction to foreign criticisms about China and Tibet. Perhaps it can be merged to 2008 unrest in Tibet or somewhere else. Chris!  c t 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I decide to hold onto my !vote for now since I want to give this article a chance.  Chris!  c t 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 *  Strong Speedy keep While a few of the sources are inadequately cited and irrelevant to Anti-cnn, most do refer to Anti-cnn by name and often Anti-cnn is a central theme. Other users advocating deletion here clearly have not bothered to read the sources at all or have no understanding of WP:COATRACK. Anti-cnn has undisputedly gained significant notability on its own and this is not WP:COATRACK. CCTV, the most prominent television network in China, interviewed its creator. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper is another example of prominent media that is completely about the website. I believe a rewrite is needed in the article, but definitely not deletion. Herunar (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I feel called to rectify some of the words OreangeMike chose. The cited links 2-5 are not reactions of chinese goverment---takungpao is a Hongkong based newspaper group free from government control, xinhua.net is a state owned company but not part of government, and it merely collects the content of TV programs previously broadcasted. CNN and Der Spiegel have certainly nothing to do with chinese government, and certainly not unreliable sources. Secondly its does not contain critism of western media coverage in china, nor does the Anti-cnn site it talks about do anything close to that. It's only about claimed "biase and distortion" in some reports. Big difference. If anyone has really checked cited links 4&5 and then spent a little time on Anti-cnn itself, he will agree with me that there's actually an atmosphere of approval for what they call"fair" media coverage, no matter where they come from. As for the content of this page itself I will not accept OrangeMike's assertion that it mentioned Anti-cnn merely as an excuse start irrelavent discuss, because there is simply NO discussion, only discriptions and (to be improved) cited links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From our article Ta Kung Pao: "has been funded by the government of the People's Republic of China since 1949. Widely regarded as the mouthpiece of Communist Party of China". It is definitely not free from government control.F (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Ta Kung Pao is obviously leftist, but it's not controlled by the PRC. I don't know where those statements come from, and they're uncited. In fact, the TKP website receives more views from North America than from China, so it is not so much anti-west as pro-china. Still, there are many, many other reliable sources, second-party or third-party, which talks about anti-cnn, so the problem over WP:SOURCE and WP:N has never been there. Herunar (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per Orangemike. And Wikipedia articles cannot be used to serve as a rant against organizations let alone calling it lies and distortions. Merumerume (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "lies and distortations" is in quotes and is perfectly legitimate. See WP:MOS. There is no rant - please elaborate. Herunar (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt you have not read the page carefully. There's no rant. Almost everything related to those organizations are quotations and the quotations are illustrated by pictures shown on Anti-cnn site, which is included in the cited links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note -- User talk:Helloterran appears to be a Single Purpose Account. X Marks The Spot (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Only the glaring Western-centric bias of Wikipedia's editor force would even let this approach AfD.  Coverage from multiple secondary news sources gives notability and verifiability.  Celarnor Talk to me  07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment To nom - may I ask how it is an attack page, which you just added as a reason for deletion? Currently, half of the page is devoted to CNN and Der Spiegel's responses. The rest are mostly quotes and basic information. By every definition it is not an attack page, nor WP:SOAP. While I intend to display good faith, my feeling is that your nomination is extremely biased and shows a fundamental lack of consideration and understanding of Wikipedia policies. Orangemike's reason is a legitimate suggestion but ultimately false and shows a lack of research, considering the many sources in the article which directly contradicts what he says. I urge admins to close this ridiculous nomination and praise the contributors who were able to build a well-cited, well-written and NPOV article for a very sensitive subject, in a very short period. I intend to nominate the article for DYK. Herunar (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The website has notability and references. Let's just make sure it remains encyclopedic. --Triwbe (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I second : The website has notability and references. Let's just make sure it remains. Can people stop pointlessly deleting pages! Chendy (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2008 Tibetan unrest - The content is notable and has reliable sources but the article's name isn't neutral. There's the last statement that anti-xinghua.com website is already made, but we can't keep creating the same articles for each website. So the website maynot be notable but the content is. I think it's better to merge the content to 2008 Tibetan unrest. Dekisugi (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is neutral because that's what it's called. I don't understand the rest of your comment. The anti-xinhua website is created in response to the anti-cnn website. The article is and has always been notable itself and should not be merged. Herunar (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The content is notable, but the website is not. That's why I said it should be merged in the main article I said above. The whole thing can only be written in a section in the main article. Otherwise it looks like a WP:FORK article. About the anti-xinghua, that's exactly what I meant that website is not notable. There might be tens other websites come up later to act and counter-act this whole Tibetan unrest issue. Who knows more to come? So it's useless to have separate articles for these recently-created websites. Dekisugi (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The website is notable because many, many third-party source refers to it by name. Sure, it has often been cited to prove a point, but it's exactly because it has become the vent of discontent that it's notable. No other such website has received such attention. The fact that CNN decided to refer it by name is an example of how notable it is, as compared to the other websites that may spawn up. Herunar (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the website is not notable. It is referred by many at this point because of WP:RECENT. In the coming months people forget and the website is going to be just another spark of media hype. Per its title, there is also another place to merge in CNN controversies. Put it there or in 2008 unrest in_Tibet section as one or two paragraphs with tons of cite news. The content is really bloated as WP:FORK. Dekisugi (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENT is not policy and not even a guideline. It's just an essay.  A collection of opinion.  And even the essay itself states, "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists."  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say to delete the article. I'd say the content should be merged to the main article and redirect this to there. WP:RECENT is a good essay because we're not journalists here. Dekisugi (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Perfectly fine article. I understand it's been edited due to POV concerns. I'm sure people will keep an eye on it. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Absolutely no hint of personal opinion, and the content is backed up by wide coverage and sources. PeterSymonds |  talk  11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2008 Tibetan unrest I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy, but some people have used terms like notable and encyclopedic. But shouldn't whether or not something is notable depend on its legacy?  If the site was just created, it seems a bit too soon to immediately label it as notable.  Only time will tell whether or not it is notable and worth an article all by itself.  Until then, the site seems specific to the Tibet unrest, so I'm with Dekisugi above.  If it expands and critiques other stories besides the Tibet unrest, then maybe it is worth a page by itself.--Rayjapan (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Things are considered notable due to secondary coverage, not because of time. See the notability guidelines.  Celarnor Talk to me  15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but WP:NOT. Although there are news articles reporting this specific website, but it does not guarantee this website will still get coverage in the coming months. A good essay about this is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If this website becomes a significant historical entity, then I'm sure we will have a separate page here. The true significant event is the Tibetan unrest itself. Dekisugi (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I removed the speedy tag from this originally, and re-wrote it a number of times to try to make it NPOV after various users kept adding screeds of info. I'm honestly not sure how notable the website actually is; the refs are somewhat passing references, and it smacks a bit of WP:RECENT, but there are definitely 3rd party sources.  I don't think it's a Deletion candidate; if it's not kept I would be tempted to go for a merge to the Tibetan unrest article, and then split it out again if it becomes obviously independently notable. Black Kite 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important section for both CNN controversies, as well as the 2008 Tibetan unrest. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a news service and we cannot have an article about every homepage that monitors media. If this homepage lasts for a couple of years, yes, an article can be created, but as of now, the contents can easily be moved to other articles as have been suggested above.--Amban (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - To the editors that have voted to merge to 2008 Tibetan unrest... err...  have you seen the size of that article?  It's already very bloated and it's only going to get bigger.  Now, this website has been discussed in numerous mainstream news sources.  It's obviously notable.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Yes I read the article. It is bloated to another issues other than the subject itself. It is like advocating the website itself rather than an encyclopaedia article about the subject. The subject is about a website. Most of the content says others such as Jin Jing and other trivial mentioning the website by some officials. I repeat again, that at this point the content of this article is not enough to say that the website is notable. Have you looked also to the website directly? Its content is even worse that it only consists of collections of video links to other video hosting websites. Dekisugi (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to judge personally whether or not a website is "good" enough for an article. It doesn't matter if it's only a collection of videos.  (I present to you:  The Hampster Dance.)  What established the website as notable is that numerous mainstream news sources have mentioned it by name and discussed it.  If the article poorly presents the subject matter, then it needs clean-up, not deletion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and sometimes articles need merging, splitting and redirecting. At the moment, the current article does not need a split article from the main ones, say it the 2008 Tibetan unrest or CNN controversies. Dekisugi (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When people talk about anti-cnn, are they necessarily talking about the 2008 Tibetan unrest or the CNN controversies? No. It's like, when people talk about Romeo and Juliet, they're often not talking about Shakespeare's plays as a whole. Which means that R&J has notability and deserves a split, because readers may be seeking information only about Romeo and Juliet. Such is the case. Anti-cnn is not only a controversy about CNN - it has even more information about Der Spielberg. And anti-cnn is only casually related to the 2008 Tibetan unrest, since "bias in western media" is only a small part of the controversies around the 2008 Tibetan unrest. Thus, any merge does not make sense, which logically concludes that anti-cnn has notability on its own. Herunar (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the website only talk about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues? And worse it talks only from one point of view. Dekisugi (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it talks from one point of view. Every independent website has one point of view - they're not Wikipedia, where we have specific policies to include as many points of views as possible and representively. It's completely normal. It's not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues even though that's what it talks about - it is notable enough to be responded to by CNN, which means that it's also quite important among CNN controversies. Do we also include a small section in the CNN article? And in the German newspapers articles? Probably in controversies about media, and in articles about Tibet as a whole? Whether or not we split an article depends on its notability. It certainly has gained much notability on itself, much much more than enough to exist as an article. Herunar (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You said: It's not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues even though that's what it talks about. How do you know that the website is not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest while you said it is the content of the website? Dekisugi (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh one more thing about your opinion here. It's funny to see you advocate keep for this small article where the content is barely enough to have a separate article where you advocated don't split for a very long section in 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay section about protests issue. Dekisugi (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These two are different issues. I have stated my rationale, and please refrain from making comparisons for the sole purpose of making a judgement on me. If you want to discuss about the split of that article, go to the talk page. The unrest in Tibet is the content of the website, and yet because of its content it also related itself with other topics. This is common sense and I don't want to have to explain it again. Herunar (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's different debates but similar issue, and you gave different views. The article we're debating here is separated from 2008 Tibetan unrest, but the content is really minimum. The subject (the website) contains links to videos about the Tibetan unrest. Yet, it can only be explained simply by a single paragraph in the main article, that there are websites recently created as the aftermath of the event with the same numerous cited references we saw in this article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's funny you choose to focus your argument on some not-so-central points. The wiki policies only apply to wiki articles, not directly to their subjects. I guess it's mainly notability issue that you are concerned, and I think it should not be a problem given all those contents and citations and extensive reading materials given. The Anti-cnn site was a response to reports on tibet unrest, not the event itself, which means it's much more than a simple correction of news details. If you take a closer look you will find that this wiki article, too, centers upon the actions and reactions of different parties, and the unrest is only the background. Cited links 2-4 shows that this site has played a critical role in part of recent evolution of netizen culture, and this alone guarantees its importance. The reactions of some media and organizations, and their attitudes towards its existence, are a relatively indirect, but still incontrovertible assurance of its position in history. Helloterran (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And? The content is stil barely enough to get a separate article than one paragraph in the main article's section. That's it. It's only a small effect of the whole Tibetan unrest issue. I don't see that the site is more broad that just a collection of video links. And there's no way that this recently created website played a critical role. The article does not show a significant important role in anything than just a hype. The reaction of media is only temporary, so that's why it's better that the content is placed inside the main article. When it lasts for longer time and the more coverage about the subject (the website, not the content of the website) is available, then we can have a separate article it here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Dekisugi (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not mainly about tibet unrest so it's irrelevent how much proportion it counts for in THAT issue. You tend to believe that this website is a temprary emotional outburst of some (group of) individual(s), but you fail to see the fact that it hosts a forum with thousands of new posts about related issue and beyond everyday, and until this day it's still receiving new materials. Whether the action-reaction cycle between Anti-cnn and its targets will end soon and why is an interesting topic with multiple factors to take into consideration, that's why I believe it's way too early to come to your conclusion. Your reasoning to doubt its notability can be applied exactly to 2008 Tibetan unrest itself, especially the time span and subject coverage part, for what are now under heated discussion is not what happened in those couple of days, but underlying deeper issues. May be you should suggest merging it to Human rights in the People's Republic of China first. Helloterran (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I dont think WP:SOAP fits here: there is nothing original to advocate, not here, not on that website, but only fact based comment on existing opinions. Helloterran (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There are WP:COATRACK issues here, but I think they can be fixed. With regard to notability, it seems just barely established. (And I think better links can be found further establish WP:N).  B figura  (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there do seem to be sufficient sources, such as the Washington Post. DGG (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really notable enough at the moment. Lord of Light (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment the website is still clocking up more minor refernces on news.google. A mention in Die Ziet [], and in The Times [] plus there seems to be a very minor news story about the website being unaccesible on the UN HQ computers, all since this AfD. Still no absolute, slam-dunk article exclusively about anti-CNN covering it in vast detail in some major news outlet.Nick Connolly (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * also a comment - the news articles mentioned above only say trivial thing about this subject (the anti-cnn website). The Times even does not mention it at all (I don't know where you found it). The Die Ziet news even says more similar websites appeared only because temporarily angered emotion by some people. Therefore, since this AfD, there's no other major reliable secondary source coverage about this anti-cnn website. It obviously shows non-notability about the website. Yes, there was such historical event where websites were created in the aftermath of 2008 Tibetan unrest. Doesn't it enough to write there in a single paragraph? Dekisugi (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * more comment It's irrelevent what Der Zeit think it is. The very fact that they noticed it and mentioned it in a published editorial suggests just the opposite of their claim. It's also inappropriate to compare Anti-cnn with some sites set up for some historical events, because it's not about any particular event, but the underlying biase and misunderstanding as a whole, and that is a broader issue. Helloterran (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-cnn is a website about particular event: the Tibetan unrest. That's what the reliable sources say, unless if you have other reliable sources that say otherwise. Dekisugi (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-cnn is about western reports on the Tibetan unrest, not the event itself. That's what reference links 2-7 say every time they mention this site. Helloterran (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable enought, it seems more like a temporary internet fad and thus does not warrant inclusion. Might warrant inclusion if this website stays popular, but this is highly doubtful. For the moment delete or merge parts of the article with other relevant articles on the Tibetan unrest or the Olympic torch relay. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment In addition to what I earlier said... About something being notable "due to secondary coverage and not because of time", well, perhaps at the heart of the problem is Wikipedia's policies.  (I hope administrators are reading this...)  On any given day, thanks to the Associated Press and Reuters, there will be stories that will appear on many sites and possibly in many languages like English, German, Chinese, etc.  These stories can range from a devastating earthquake to the first day of spring.  On that day, they are both newsworthy, but I can imagine people being interested in the earthquake 1 or 10 years later, but I'm not sure about the second one.  Secondary coverage is used as the test for an article's importance not because it is a good test, but only because the alternative (the test of time) is difficult to measure.  I personally would like to see wikipedia as an encyclopedia than a news aggregator.  As for this article, perhaps it should have started as part of 2008 Tibetan unrest in the first place and moved out if it stood the test of time. --Rayjapan (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to point out that WP is not a paper encyclopedia - WP:NOTPAPER. This is why WP's notability guideline has no rule on so-called "legacy" or the length of time of a subject's notability, and it's why, I suspect, WP:RECENT remains only an essay of opinions, and not a policy or guideline.  There's no practical limit on the number of topics WP can cover.  And with notability clearly established, there's no reason why the subject does not deserve its own article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And also WP:NOT. WP is what it is. Please read Rayjapan above. It's really a good argument for this debate. Dekisugi (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, at most can be merged with other articles. Novidmarana (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Enough references constitute notability.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (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.