Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Delete "delete" arguments are significant, "keep" arguments less so. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Yee

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Danny Yee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is someone who has written a lot of book reviews on the web. The sources do not adequately establish notability. Besides the primary sources and web searches, which are obviously not usable, there are several books listed. As far as I can tell through Google Books, they are not in depth. He also got quoted a few times as a spokesperson for the EFA, but being quoted in the media does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that ThePlatypusofDoom's account was created yesterday, April 7. The IP editor's keep vote is based on Google search results, which is not policy-based. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He writes a lot of book reviews. Writing book reviews is almost never enough alone to make someone notable, and the way his are published, basically self-published is less likely. The sources are mainly his own work, not others assessing his work let alone reliable third party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as John Lambert above points out writing a lot of book reviews is not the same as getting coverage of a notable person as the subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification The first "speedy keep was me. I thought the explanation made that clear. I wasn't at a computer where I could sign in when I posted it. LotLE×talk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with John Pack Lambert. Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find his site and reviews he has written (e.g. on Slashdot) but all of the work I find is self-published, and I found no sources ABOUT him. Even famous authors must have sources about them to meet GNG. This does not meet GNG, nor AUTHOR. There was a Google books search given as a reference (which itself is not an acceptable reference) but all of the books I looked at were false hits - none had content related to Danny Yee. LaMona (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danny_Yee_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1086062338"