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. Secret ^account 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Choo[edit]

Danny Choo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - re-created page that does not appear to differ substantially from the deleted page. Was speedied and then undeleted. Subject still does not meet notability guidelines for lack of reliable sources that are substantially about him. One 2:17 story on CNN does not make him notable. Otto4711 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Was rightly deleted last time, and since there is still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, should be deleted again.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. RayAYang (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Danny Choo is one of the most successful bloggers in the world, and his website is consistently in the top 10,000 most visited sites in the world (sites, not blogs), not bad for a non-commercial site. Though huge in Japan and east Asia, visitors from the United States now double visitors from Japan. His Tokyo Dance Trooper videos have made him an internet celebrity. After briefly appearing in two CNN reports about the Japanese iPhone launch, he appeared on G4's Attack of the Show!. CNN then did a report about him, which was the most popular video on CNN.com that day. I can't help but be concerned when far less notable people have articles about them on Wikipedia. If someone as well known as Danny Choo doesn't deserve an article, how many thousands of other notable people need to lose their articles as well? How high do we really want to set the bar here? If being famous isn't a criteria for notability, should we limit ourselves to heads of state? Maybe call it Diplomapedia?

     Edit: Actually the site's popularity in some countries is downright amazing. Singapore: 761st, Denmark: 1,567th, Malaysia: 2,390th, Philippines: 2,715th, Canada: 3,837th, Japan: 5,080th, Indonesia: 5,347th, Australia: 5,374th, Netherlands: 5,631th, Austria: 7,166th, United States: 7,403th. Enough to make most webmasters drool. DOSGuy (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What we should limit ourselves to is articles on people who pass our notability guidelines which specifically state that "notability" is not the same thing as "popularity" or "fame." The reports on the iPhone launch are not about Danny Choo and are not reliable sources that attest to his notability. The AotS report includes him as one of several "wacky people and things in Japan" topics. The CNN video is 2 minutes and 17 seconds long and is the only independent source that is about Danny Choo. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability, which requires sources, not popularity. The cites are formatted in a deceitful way at the moment (and include copyvios at youtube etc), but none were a reliable source that discusses this person in a non-trivial way.Yobmod (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2008 (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.