Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee

 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 delete, since User:Dannyyee did not want this userfied. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Danny Yee
Though Mr. Yee, who is also a wikipedia editor, has an impressive list of book reviews and USENET contributions, notability is not firmly established in the article as written. A google search (multiple variations) is useless as "Danny Yee" seems like a rather common name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy: Although I think EFF is good, and history on the net is good, it's not notability.  I'd say userfy, and we can always break it out to an article again.  Wikibofh 04:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Delete (per Danny Yee's preference). unless it can be shown that being a board member of EFF Australia is a particularly significant thing, and that his actions as a board member have had significant impact in Australia. Sounds like a nice guy, but since he's a relatively new editor, maybe he wasn't aware of WP:VAIN . A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  04:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:VAIN isn't really relevant - I didn't create the entry. But I agree it's pretty borderline, so I'm happy for it to go away (I almost blogged the entry when I found it, with a tag along the lines of "You know Wikipedia is out of control when..."). -- Danny Yee 09:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that the original article was started by a couple of anonymous users, I jumped to the conclusion that you had started it before you registered. My bad. Thanks for taking this so gracefully. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  19:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's not EFF Australia, it's Electronic Frontiers Australia (must do some work on that article!), and it's not affiliated with the EFF, though it was inspired by it. Also, almost all the Google results for "Danny Yee" are in fact references to me, if that's any help. -- Danny Yee 09:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further digging sees that indeed, they are, for which I apologize. If notability can be further elaborated in the article, I will change my vote and withdraw my nomination.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. &mdash; Chameleon 12:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. JamesBurns 04:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note on nomination: As an elaboration in line with recent comments, my nomination is for a Userfy rather than a straight-up deletion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 08:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As bloggers go, I'm very small fry (among the least significant in the Bloggers category), while there are a good number of Australian civil liberties or free software activists who need entries before I do - most notably EFA executive director Irene Graham. Which leaves http://dannyreviews.com, but I can't think of anyone achieving notability just as a book reviewer - online, Harriet Klausner (of 3000+ reviews at Amazon fame) is probably the best candidate, though I can't get excited by one paragraph reviews of romance novels.  So just delete it - I'll rewrite my user page. -- Danny Yee 11:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let Danny build his own User page unencombered.--Takver 12:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy -- if that's what Danny wants, or delete. - Longhair | Talk 12:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Recently Danny has commented in his blog on how Google had curiously demoted his site in their search rankings so that even if you search specifically on the name of his site the actual site appears well down in the returned results. I speculate that a reader of Danny's blog may have thought that adding an entry to Wikipedia on Danny with links to his site may positively affect its Google ranking. Notice I am certainly not suggesting that Danny did this or would condone adding material to Wikipedia for this purpose. Oska 00:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, my current best theory as to why Google thinks my web sites are spam is that lots of spammers/scrapers have created junk pages with links to my pages on them. And part of that problem comes from having so many Open Directory entries... The web is not as friendly a place as it was back in 1994. -- Danny Yee 04:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm not sure how this voting for deletion works - should I just remove the article myself now or is it automated somehow? -- Danny Yee 04:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It'll be handled by an administrator Danny, once the discussion time is up (5 days). See Deletion policy and Guide to Votes for deletion. A curious process for you to go through. I hope you remain undeleted in the real world for a long time to come :) Oska 01:45, Jun 16, 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 .