Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (2nd 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Danny Yee

 * Danny Yee was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-11. The result of the discussion was "delete".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Danny Yee.

Fixing the nomination made by Kmaguir1. He made claims that the subject is not notable. This AfD creation is procedural- for now, I abstain Wafulz 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB Tom Harrison Talk 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Keep - significant mentions on Google Scholar, and from .edu domain. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Note that in the previous AfD debate, there were no "keep" recommendations; all participants said either to userfy or to delete. Those participants included User:Danny Yee himself who preferred to delete the content as he didn't want it on his user page. In fact, his user page states that the article Danny Yee is not particularly useful. Since the article's claim to notability for the subject is as an online book reviewer, I don't think he meets any WP:BIO criteria to such a degree that he ought to have an article about him even against his will. --Metropolitan90 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by editor (Kmaguir1) who does not care about subject, but is simply nominating out of unrelated edit conflict with article creator.  • Apart from that, however, the "Google test" gives 155k hits for Yee, whose reviews are widely quoted, referenced and syndicated.  Relatedly, Google scholar shows a rather substantial 365 mentions.  The "author test" mentions readership of >5000: according to Yee's statements (see Talk:Danny Yee), he has gotten over a million hits on his reviews over the years—even if Yee's characterization of server logs isn't exactly accurate, the 5000 threshold is easy exceeded by two orders of magnitude. FWIW, Google groups shows 4260; and Alexa shows his homepage at 64,061.  I also find it notable that his reviews have been slashdot frontpage stories repeatedly. • The prior AfD (over a year ago) was based on different, and inadequate, article contents that in fact failed to assert notability.  LotLE × talk  20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can I vote? He's not notable, he was judged to be so, by Metropolitan90's argument, he should be gone as it is--he doesn't meet any WP:BIO criteria--he's a simple online book reviewer. That's not notable. If I publish book reviews on the net, do I become notable? Ridiculous. -Kmaguir1 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure you can "vote". Although on Wikipedia the decision is not by the number of votes; it is by the merit of the argument. But a “vote” might have weight, I suspect some Admins understandably count votes when closing out the process. Regardless, craft your argument thoughtfully and it will have its day in "court". WP:BIO states clearly that it is not policy. But whether this article meets the emerging continuously emerging consensus on what is notable is still essentially the subject to debate&mdash;this debate (Wikipolicy is evanescent and virtual). And yes, if you publish enough on the net, even if you publish nowhere else, it is possible you can become notable. Williamborg (Bill) 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO is a direct extension of our Wikipedia is not a genealogical database official policy. Uncle G 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, regardless of the personalities involved in the discussion, this person is nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash; Notability is always such an interesting debate. Regardless of the allegation of bad faith nomination the question is, does Danny Yee meet a reasonable standard for notability. With 683,000 Google hits I'm willing to accept him, even if he's done little else&mdash;he's internet notable. If we get rid of all folks and topics this borderline, Wikipedia will have a lot fewer entries. I've only "voted" against a couple of notabilities today; I seem to like them all. Williamborg (Bill) 21:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that you can be notable and just be on the net, like a James Berardinelli, but it's very rare, and you have to be notable in an area that itself is notable--like Berardinelli, he's a movie reviewer. Billions of people have seen the movies he's reviewed, and he has a sufficient number and sufficient mention in non-internet sources to be considered notable. But Danny Yee? I think not. You'd have to say that the things his reviews are about are as popular as movies, the huge category of movies, or somewhere close and I think that that is not in evidence, from LotLE or from anyone else. -Kmaguir1 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I only get 155,000 unique ghits, but even so, for a supposed Internet personality, he's really nn, I feel. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The 155k is the right count: probably the larger number forgets the quotes around the name, i.e. both "danny"s and "yee"s... but still: how can 155K genuine hits be NN?! It's definitely not linkspam inflation, but genuine references. We argue on AfD's over whether a few hundred hits reaches notability... not whether over a hundred thousand hits does! LotLE × talk  22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I garner over 16,000 Google Web hits for my name, all of which are me. To my amazement, I've recently discovered that I get Google Scholar hits.  I'm unverifiable.  Counting Google hits is not research.  Actually reading the material that Google turns up is research.  If you want to demonstrate notability, please cite sources of biographical material about this person.  There's not a single source cited in either the article or this AFD discussion.  Uncle G 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we're tied 3-3 so far. Let's see what further involvement from the community does. -Kmaguir1 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop counting votes and start looking for, reading, citing, and evaluating sources. Uncle G 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough. It's also just a stub, and is fine as such. (Question: is it typical for the AfD nominator to also be a voter and a vote counter? Any other functions he should serve?)--Anthony Krupp 21:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote count. It would be inappropriate for the nominator to close the discussion, but Kmaguir1 has a perfect right to make any other points he/she wishes.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zoe's got it right. For those new to the Wiki process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion policy states "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." You might want to read the rest of the section as well. Williamborg (Bill) 22:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And since my last remark seems a little rude, let me assure yoou everyone is welcome to contribute, new or not so new. But the individual closing is going to look to the merit of the argument, not the number voting. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per LotLE.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that vote can't count--no one who has voted for me has been voting 'per me'. You can't vote because you have friends. Period.-Kmaguir1 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Bakasuprman is saying that xe agrees with and is employing Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's rationale, which is perfectly fine. Uncle G 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response thats because vote for Kmaguir would be "per nom" and the fact that LotLE had a very good point. I am neither his friend, nor have I ever been associated with him outside this AfD.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN -72.147.230.148 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: IP address' first edit to Wikipedia (nominator previously blocked for sockpuppetry).
 * User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters suspects sockpuppetry on this page, but has not followed through with any formal complaints.-Kmaguir1 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep External sources added.- Shazbot85 Talk 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- NN pending addition of sources. I see no references except to his own personal website proper, and to a link within the website itself. He's not sourced anywhere else. Provide some sources or I'm throwing in for delete. - Shazbot85 Talk 03:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per Shazbot85, needs secondary references (published news articles, etc.) besides his own website. Many notable bloggers were cited in newpapers, and hence gain a place in wikipedia. --Vsion 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, change vote after references are added (thanks). He was cited in Magdalena Ball's published book. --Vsion 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone cited in a book gets to be on Wikipedia? Why don't we just add all six billion on here.-Kmaguir1 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Incongruent comparison. He's been noted several times meaning his writings and thoughts have seen the light of day on a consistent basis. - Shazbot85 Talk 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All this citation is doing is showing to the world how non-notable he really is. Not of this stuff is even remotely encyclopedic. The picture is gratuitous. He's not notable, and he hasn't become so since the last determination he wasn't. That's what you should be doing--you should be providing evidence that he's changed since the consensus of the community was to delete. Absent that, it's hard for anyone to objectively vote to uphold the page. -Kmaguir1 05:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While I don't fine that much of an issue with keeping the article, I completely the picture is gratuitous especially in proportion to his notability. He is not notable for his in person presence - he isn't an actor, TV personality, model, etc.  He is known for his words.  --Ben Houston 01:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What does having a picture have to do at all with someone's notability? There are plenty of people who are "known for [their] words" that have their images on Wikipedia, such as any major author: Ray Bradbury, H. G. Wells, J. K. Rowling, Karl Marx, etc. Ryūlóng 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I feel that the length of articles and content of articles should be reflective of a persons relative notability. Its a subjective thing and I'm just stating my opinion - no one says that you have to have the same opinion as mine, diversity is allowed here on Wikipedia.  --Ben Houston 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I mention about a dozen bios of people not noted for their appearance that have pictures at User talk:Bhouston; none of them are "top importance bios" and some have shorter articles than Yee. Not to clutter Ben's page, but I think it's worth looking at the list.  LotLE × talk  17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but comparing the notability of Danny Yee, as much am I like his book reviews, to Tim Berners-Lee (the inventer of the web!), Michel Foucault (mega-star philosopher!), Frank Wilczek (nobel prizing winner - physics) is simply ridiculous. Although the others are more in line, but I notice that at least one of them is up for deletion.  I think that LotLE is pushing the article towards vanity, but to be honest, it is pretty harmless either way -- its just Wikipedia.  This is my last comment on the issue.  --Ben Houston 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The one up for deletion was nominated by Kmaguir1, and has only received one "delete" vote (guess whose). Obviously yes, you name the most famous three from my list above; look at the other ten too.  There was actually a discussion recently on WP:LIVING's talk page, specifically about how desirable more subject pictures would be (no one disagreed, it was just a question of finding GFDL images).  LotLE × talk  18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm trying hard to find something notable, but neither slashdotting nor board membering impresses me particularly. My conclusion is that he is notable to a very niche audience, too niche to be considered for an encyclopaedia. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course--I mean, this isn't even a close one, like the Raphael Samuel article. This guy has never seen print, and User:Anthony Krupp and User:Lulu of Lotus-Eaters are blinded by their personal involvement and their animus towards me, and prior history of personal attack and trying to get me in trouble with their friends.-Kmaguir1 15:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest, Kmaguir1: I created the Yee article long before you joined WP, so I hardly think my belief in his notability has anything to do with you. Moreover, I had heard of Yee, and read his reviews, long before I joined WP: I think I first heard of him in 1993-4 (before the WWW existed, probably), when his reviews were widely syndicated and discussed on Usenet.  Yee has certainly "seen print" in terms of being mentioned in many books and newspapers; but in the last decade or more, a lot of publication is electronic-only.  Not that it really matters, but Yee has repeatedly received book offers for collections of his reviews, but has declined to do that (if I were him, I think I'd have accepted; but I'm not him).  LotLE × talk  16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blinded? Nom's claim doesn't fit my edits. Advice: focus on content.--Anthony Krupp 19:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: If Vsion deletes per Shazbot85, and Shazbot85 has retracted his delete vote, that seems to entail Vsion retracting his/her delete vote as well, barring an explicit comment. That's my take anyway. I'm sure the closing admin will read this correctly.--Anthony Krupp 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding, Anthony. Although I'm pleased Vsion decided to revisit his/her vote, using a reason of "per So-and-so" doesn't pledge a vote or loyalty.  It just means: "I vote this way for the same reasons enunciated by So-and-so".  Just because one person changes their mind doesn't mean that everyone who was convinced by their original explanation must do so.  LotLE × talk  16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as a long time reader of his book reviews, I first came across them in 1998. --Ben Houston 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad Faith Nom per LotLE Æon  Insanity Now! EA!  19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Myles Long 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Ter e nce Ong (T 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments. I won't bother questioning if this was a good faith or bad faith nom.  RFerreira 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, good article and notable enough, people could come to Wikipedia wanting to know more about him. bbx 08:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a bad faith nom. Passes WP:BIO and does not come close to CSD G4. And I find the way that Kmaguir1 berates anyone who he has had conflicts with in the past is just on the border of WP:NPA. Ryūlóng 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most lately, Kmaguir1 has taken to semi-vandalizing the article itself by removing the portrait image. LotLE × talk  17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was another who felt the picture was inappropriate. Editing and deleting do not constitute vandalism, especially consensus editing and deleting.-Kmaguir1 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ì
 * 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.