![\"SOS](\"http:\/\/www.xjaymanx.com\/xjaymanx_2007\/Images-toybox-2008\/xjaymanx_wikipedia_tale_450.jpg\")
\nSOS Danny – A Wikipedia Tale | Click to enlarge<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
For the humble readers of DannyChoo.com<\/a>, I’ve got a short-lived (March 2nd to April 9th) tale which I’d forgotten to tell till now… Several months back on March 2nd, I was writing a blog entry quoting Danny, and wanted to reference him without citing his blog. Instinctively, I searched Wikipedia. But nothing. No Danny Choo. So what did I do? I decided to create an entry for him.<\/p>\n From that point on, 95% of the credit goes to *DOSGuy<\/a>* (thanx dude!) for developing the Danny Choo article to its fullest. However, despite attempts to reinforce the entry over its several-week history<\/a>, the article was speedily deleted<\/a> on April 9th for failing to meet the guidelines of “notability”. Which, I admit, is understandable. Self-advertised popularity doesn’t necessarily equal encyclopedic noteworthiness (and vice-versa).<\/p>\n Luckily and incredibly, *DOSGuy* saved a copy of the article and still hosts it under his user page here<\/a>.<\/p>\n So months later, the question remains: Do we have anything to add to the article that might make it good enough (notable enough) for resubmission? Should we care about Wikipedia or “notability”? After all, if indeed we have something, we can still edit it. In other words, S.O.S. = Save Our Stormtrooper Danny. ^_^;<\/p>\n P.S. Thanx *Chun<\/a>*, I hope I can borrow your “seal of shock”. ^_^;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SOS Danny – A Wikipedia Tale | Click to enlarge For the humble readers of DannyChoo.com, I’ve got a short-lived (March 2nd to April 9th) tale which I’d forgotten to tell till now… Several months back on March 2nd, I was writing a blog entry quoting Danny, and wanted to reference him without citing his … Continue reading