Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt

Regular DRV closer's comment: Please do NOT snowball this. Doing so has been objected to. Let it run, and we'll see where we are after a few days. GRBerry 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Second GRBerry's request by another regular DRV closer: A dim view and a pox upon anyone subverting anymore process in this matter.  :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And since it is being endorsed my many - don't close and relist without consensus--Doc^g 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A procedural question: Are we deciding whether the article should be deleted, or whether we are endorsing this particular deletion of it? If it's the former, why aren't we doing it on AfD? Some votes may be different in that case. Zocky | picture popups 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Both. It is deleted, we are deciding whether it should stay so. That's all.--Doc^g 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One interpretation of the deletion log is that it was deleted under the WP:IAR policy. Whether we are better off with or without the article is relevant to deletions under that policy. An alternative interpretation is that it was deleted under WP:CSD#G10/WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, paragraph 2, which says "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion". Under this interpretation also, opinions about the content of the article are also relevant. I hope this helps frame the discussion. GRBerry 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of DRV isn't to establish whether an article should be kept. It's to decide whether a particual admin action was executed properly. It's more like RFC than like AFD. Trying to push content decisions through DRV damages its function, i.e. acting as a check on admins (which we used to handle through wheelwarring before DRV existed). Zocky | picture popups 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? The consistent consensus has been to keep it in the past and so it should be at least visible while we decide at afd, SqueakBox 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Talk:Daniel Brandt (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Daniel Brandt|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)

• Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
• Pages talk page was deleted on 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Do you people use common sense at times? We are not obliged to do this nor are we proveyers of knowledge"
• Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) deleted his/her own talkpage on 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) with a deletion summary: "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"

I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria to delete Daniel Brandt.

--Cat out 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a vote. Otherwise blank messages stating "Endorse" or "Overturn" do not add in any way to consensus building.

• endorse deletion this is long overdue. We are a serious encyclopedia and we need to rise obove the silliness of this tiff. He doesn't want an article, and he isn't (very) notable. He can be mentioned on the various pages about the activities he is involved in, that's a much better solution. Honestly, whilst we may not like this guy, enough is enough - he's got a point, our biographies on people who are not public figures have rel-life implications. Would deleting this this set a precedent, and lead to other demands?? Yes, and we'd be a better encyclopedia for it. Delete all less-notability bios if the subject is unhappy and the article no loss, and lets go back to creating great articles in all the meaningful areas where we are full of shit.--Doc^g 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I've awarded Yanksox an Ed Poor barnstar.--Doc^g 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Putting his interests over those of the encyclopedia and its industrious contributors would violate both the spirit of the banning policy to which he is currently subject, and the core principles of the project. If he's as reasonable as you say, unblock him and let him wage his own battle. —freak(talk) 21:29, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, in order that 400Kb of AfD argumentation need not take place. 400Kb of contributor effort that would be better expended writing articles – Qxz 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • False argument. If AFD argumentation could be converted into writing articles, we shouldn't have AFD at all - if anyone complains about their article being deleted, just tell them to shut up, and write more articles. I think it's pretty clear one of the reasons people were articles is that we do have a policy not to just delete them without process. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I'm all in favour of AfDs generally, just not, er, dramatic ones – Qxz 04:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Daniel Brandt's significance isn't all that great, and respect for his privacy should take precedence, at least as long as he is still alive. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles. Bastique 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That we lack an article on X, who is notable, is not a reason to delete an article on Y, who is also notable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. You're right, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Similarly, this wasn't an encyclopedia article; it was a weapon in some people's private war with a vilified external force. When the formal rationality expressed on policy pages loses touch with the substantive rationality behind building this encyclopedia, we shouldn't be afraid to just do the right thing. --Robth^Talk 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, retrieving the article from Google cache shows that the article had thirty-two sources. While some of those weren't too specifically about Brandt, others were. He's easily notable, so his bullying aside, that article belongs here. This is not the same as the Brian Peppers case, where sources were thin to nonexistent. WP:BLP applies to unsourced information, not well-sourced information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; in the spirit of WP:BLP, "do no harm". Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion due to my own personal belief (admittedly unsupported by current policy) that in cases of unclear, ambiguous, or borderline notability we should respect subjects' wishes not to have articles about themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actualy we have a clear precedent that the subject's wishes should be taken into account in cases of marginal notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke (I knew that would come in handy).--Doc^g 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It's true that the WP:CSD may not have been met specifically, and that's not something that should happen casually, but this was clearly a proper example of WP:IAR to do the right thing. This guy isn't really notable, and if, after he dies of old age, we revisit the matter and decide he actually is/was, then he can be re-added. There's nothing _that_ urgent about having an article about him in the meantime. The wiki isn't going to burn down. It was a fine article, well cited, and it's still there in the logs. I don't think his bullying should be rewarded either, but perhaps the best revenge is living well in the meantime. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; If he's notable at all, he's just notable for being notable. Let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I wish I'd done this a year ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Wizardman 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion He's not really notable, no real reason to have this article.Lkinkade 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Can I say endorse deletion and someone hurry up and emergency desysop Yanksox for apparently going mad and acting without any deletion policy basis? Maybe just deleting the Brandt article would be regarded as mere rougeness, but the deletion of the user page etc. appears to demonstrate this was Yanksox's explosive departure from the wiki, or something to that effect. I'm happy to be proven wrong, however. - Mark 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Upon review, I tend more towards to overturn on this. I am not obsessed with process or whatever, but Deletion Review is not AfD. We are supposed to be examining the merits of the deletion by Yanksox, which was clearly unsupported by deletion policy. I feel this should be undeleted and sent to AfD (or have the WP:OFFICE folks step in and make an executive decision). - Mark 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the use of administrator tools/access on behalf of banned users has, in the past, resulted in emergency desysopping, though I do not believe anybody here is actually recommending that, so let's not mock that suggestion until it actually arises. —freak(talk) 21:11, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I have yet to see anybody explain why Brandt is notable in the first place. - jredmond 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read the article? —freak(talk) 17:32, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse. Good job, Yanksox. – Chacor 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Wizardman 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Process wasn't followed, and the article was kept through numerous AfD debates earlier. While the subject's notability is fairly marginal, plenty of other people with higher notability, including famous comic book artist John Byrne, have made similar demands, which are likely to get more strident given this precedent. And isn't Paris Hilton also just notable for being notable? Should we delete her too? *Dan T.* 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact afd has failed to delete this just shows what a busted flush it is. And Paris Hilton is a very notable hotel, so I see no comparison.--Doc^g 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense, Doc, but that argument is basically, "The rules won't let me do what I want, so the rules must be broken." Abeg92contribs 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and look into the wider problem of long-time users supporting unilateral actions like this one. Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist. Or was your intent something other than trying to menace folks for expressing an opinion? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  It's not about opinions, it's about imposing one's opinions on others. Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. I have no involvement and little interest in the drama surrounding Brandt, but I care a lot about seeing things done right. People regularly (and generally wrongly) accuse admins of acting like they hold a sceptre, not a mop, and I'm against anything that reinforces that notion. If this is so clearly a correct decision, Yanksox and the commenters above shouldn't have trouble getting an AfD consensus for it. William Pietri 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment it is the arguments like of the last two users that have almost driven me to leave wikipedia. Total introspective focus, the only concern being "have the internal rules been followed?" - "are some wikipedians getting too much power?" "is the structure/community etc. being disrespected?". I'm afraid I'm getting sick of such myopic navel-gazing. We are a great encyclopedia - we are one of the top ten websites in the whole world. We are a resource for all humanity - not just a trade union for wikipedians, or an experiment in on-line democracy. We have a global reach and a global responsibility, and yes, we can really really hurt people in the real world. Does carrying on this petty tiff with one individual make for a gear encyclopedia? No. Is his article critical to an encyclopedia? Absolutely not. Are we better without it? Probably. Should we consider the wishes of borderline non-entities who don't like having articles? Yes, we don't leave our humanity at the door. With great power comes great responsibility. And if we delete 1,000 Brandts we will not be weaker. Ignore all the rules - says it well "if the rules stop you improving Wikipedia" then IGNORE THEM. We are bigger than rules and petty powergames - we are not a club that concentrates on in-house politics, protocols and pecking orders. Let's rise above it and be great. Lift your sights people.--Doc^g 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc, we're all working for improving Wikipedia. It's just that some of us think that a transparent process is more likely to achieve that than unilateral actions by people who think they know better than others. Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

When the world looks in at Wikipedia, it is not our transparent processes that impress them. Think bigger.--Doc^g 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to improve Wikipedia, not the world's opinion of it. Even if this particular deletion improves the outside impression of Wikipedia in the short run, the idea that admins can unilaterally delete articles they don't like will make the encyclopedia (and the impression) worse in the long run. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I actually don't care much about the rules as such; I'm a big fan of IAR. I look at our rules as our ever-changing expression of how to make this enterprise work. They're the tail, not the dog. What I do care about is fairness, and the appearance of fairness. That matters because it's vital for the trust that an encylopedia needs from both readers and contributors. Were Yanksox doing this as a deliberate, thoughtful action that he were willing to defend and drive consensus around, I'd probably let it go. But his disappearance in a puff of drama suggests that even he knows it was an abuse of power. The end does not justify the means. William Pietri 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. A notable person and the cached page on Google looks encyclopedic enough. Removing the page just because the subject doesn't want it here sets a disturbing precedent for others. --Dookama 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I honestly wonder why there hasn't been any thread on WP:ANI about this yet, why there's no wheel-war going on and why the consensus on this seems to be quite clear on this (until now, at least) all of a sudden. Not that I think that's a negative thing of course, but it just strike me as odd. I don't have a strong opinion on the DRV itself either way, although process shouldn't be ignored like that, IMHO. If process doesn't work, {{sofixit}}, but don't just ignore it. --Conti|✉ 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment actually, it was restored out-of-process while this DRV was ongoing by Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and redeleted by Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). – Chacor 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • • How was Bumm13's restoration of the article "out-of-process"? May I refer you to the Undeletion policy which states "If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting." Bumm13 wasn't even given time to blank the article, if that was his intention. - Mark 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, so much for that. To my defense, I started writing that comment before the article got undeleted/redeleted. Maybe an WP:ANI thread was started by now. :) --Conti|✉ 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - good call. Firstly, with this gone this odious individual might actually shut up. Secondly, I just don't think he's notable. What's he done? A bit of web activism that everyone will have completely forgotten about in ten years? The odd repulsive paranoid rant? Who cares? Looking at the google cached version the sources cited are either trivial, fail RS, are unrelated to establishing notability, or only mention Brandt incidentally. Doesn't seem notable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The article long ago stopped being about "encyclopedia", and turned into a spite-fence. This is a somewhat face-saving way to get out of a very bad situation, and going back to contention over it hurts *everyone* -- Seth Finkelstein 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia sometimes seems to me like a little kid yelling "I'll do it because I want to, but not because you tell me to." Just because Daniel Brandt wants the article deleted is not a good reason to keep it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So it was deleted because little kids wanted to, not because Brandt told them to? Maybe I don't understand you correctly. —freak(talk) 17:31, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD It seems that the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and had survived eleven AfD nominations. I don't think it is appropriate to just ignore those discussions. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse per all above. Enough is enough here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• AFD'd. – Chacor 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse Regardless of the evilness of the subject, we should be the first to demonstrate WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. This is an encyclopedia on the web, not the web on an encyclopedia. We should focus on article people care about and leave documenting the lolzinternet to websites that don't care to be reliable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If by "dignity" you are implying (as suggested in the page to which you linked), that the article mocks or disparages Daniel Brandt, could you give an example? —freak(talk) 17:59, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Long overdue, it's time that we moved on ages ago. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and keep article. I agree in principle with the notion that borderline bios may be deleted on the subject's request. As someone who was familiar with Brandt's work before I ever saw his article on Wikipedia, I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding, whether we like it or not, his Wikipedia criticism) has been covered in many notable publications with wide circulation, online and offline (the article had 33 references, many of them to reliable secondary sources). Whatever criteria we define for "borderline" notability, they need to be fairly and consistently applied. If this article is supposed to be the measure of such a set of criteria, too many other articles will be deleted. Moreover, the abuse of process in this particular case will embolden those who confuse self-righteousness with reason. This deletion seems more like an emotional backlash than a rational evaluation of the facts to me, and as such, brings us dangerously close to ochlocracy as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--Eloquence* 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion here and elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted For pete's sake, I go one place to voice deletion, somebody closes that, I go another, that one is closed by time I hit the save button. I hate process, but we need to delete this and stop the wheel warring now...so leave this review open for 24 hours at least then snowball it.--MONGO 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So it's okay to speedy-close it, but only after you have got your two cents in? —freak(talk) 18:01, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Not ME...I got my two cents in long before the 24 hours. 24 hours since there is unlikely to be any consensus change beyond that.--MONGO 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of article itself, but I'd much rather see a redirect to Google Watch then a salt. Just as long as this is NOT WP:SNOW'd then do whatever you want with the space.--Wizardman 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing vote for now.
• Overturn Speedy deletion is designed for uncontroversial articles, this quite obviously does not fit that category. Most of the "endorse" votes here seem to actually be "delete" votes by people who don't understand the difference between AfD and DRV. If this goes to AfD, I may well vote to delete it, but this isn't the place for that discussion. --Tango 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist on principle. Stop wheel warring, please. While I do believe that this fails WP:BLP and have commented to that effect in the 12th AFD [1] I do not approve of this administrative tug-of-war. This was an improper speedy deletion and should be discussed at length (without early closure) on the Articles for deletion page, not here. (jarbarf) 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and list if you want to. Out of process speedy kamikaze delete. Abeg92contribs 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)!
• Question Would it be possible to discuss the matter without edit warring over whether this should be at DRV or AfD or whether this should be speedily closed or not? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Overturn. Leaving aside entirely process issues - which are significant and which deeply vex me, for example the apparent trend of some people to just keep AfDing and deleting pages until they get the result they want, or having an AfD on an already deleted page, or Yanksox's two deletions (which are in no wise covered by CSDs and an obvious abuse of deletion policy) - Brandt is notable, and has been notable for a long time. He's been covered by the press time and again, and not just for his political activism, or his anti-Google activism, or his anti-Wikipedia activism, or his intelligence agency database stuff... any one of which would meet WP:BIO's primary criterion: "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." These are all credible arguments which have swayed multiple AfDs to keep the article (I would say how many, but Yanksox, y'know, deleted Talk:Daniel Brandt). DRV is supposed to be about whether process was followed, and not about being a more deletion-happy AfD. Process was manifestly not followed. --Gwern (contribs) 17:26 23 February 2007 (GMT)
• Overturn I am human and I am objective. A hassle, is not enough reason to delete this article. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted yes process was abused, yes this was not a valid CSD, the result however is appropriate. Regardless of brandt's supposed notability, his article is a perfect example of selective application of policy. For fucks sake he's been trying to get this article deleted for what 3 years now... and only now are we finally letting it go? If he wasnt a critic of wikipedia his OTRS complaint would have been handled with an article deletion after his first complaint! Time to grow up folks, regardless of your personal opinion of the man, he has a very valid right to have his article deleted.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Perfect example of what? Policy should not be selectively applied. —freak(talk) 17:34, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I think he clearly meets WP:BIO, stories mostly about him have been written by multiple publications. I thought we didn't delete articles by request of the subject, we only deleted them if they actually didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. --W.marsh 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Are we really missing anything by no longer having an article about Daniel Brandt? Do Encarta or Encyclopædia Britannica have an article about him? It'll be easier for all of us if we keep the article deleted and stop arguing about it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia though.--Wizardman 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We do not need to resort to strawmen arguments. Britannica will never have individual articles detailing each and every one of the hundreds upon hundreds of different Pokemon characters out there either. Here we should be discussing whether policy was correctly applied, not what paper encyclopedias are capable of providing. (jarbarf) 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If I had a copy of Britannica handy, I'd research this estimate, but I'm willing to guess that fewer than one percent of us have made a major contribution to an article which would be found in any other encyclopedia, anywhere. If that is a criteria for deletion, I might as well not be here, as the record would show I have no useful knowledge to contribute. —freak(talk) 17:53, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist This whole process stinks. Let an AfD run its proper course. I, too, share the concerns expressed by others about overzealous admins and the importance of transparency. --ElKevbo 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: What in the hell is with all these WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes by established editors? A nice chunk of the !votes have no explanation for them, this isn't a tally. It's actually quite sickening to see this... I don't mind people voting the way they wish, but come on, give reasons for your stance.--Wizardman 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yes, this was out of process and has caused all sorts of ruckus. But we're now faced with the question of whether we should have an article on Daniel Brandt or not. In my opinion, we shouldn't because he marginally notable and the cost/benefit of the article is too high. We shouldn't delete articles solely because the subject doesn't want it, but we also shouldn't keep articles for this reason. Let's put this behind us and work on one of the other 1.5 million articles. ChazBeckett 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What cost of ours would be recouped by deleting it? None, whatsoever. —freak(talk) 17:55, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that's not really what I meant by cost/benefit analysis, but I get what you're saying. While the article exists, there will be endless AfDs/DRV and other deletion discussions involving dozens of editors about this one article. The benefit of keeping the article is minimal due to Brandt's minimal notability. ChazBeckett 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree, due to the number of other articles in which his name is prominently mentioned, which would have been easier to enumerate prior to the systematic de-linking I've witnessed just minutes after the deletion. —freak(talk) 18:07, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
      • In fact I've recently been questioned about this on my talk page. What I'd like to ask is how he can be worthy of mention in so many articles (despite sneaky efforts to hide that fact), but not worthy enough for an article for said links to point to? —freak(talk) 18:18, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
        • Brandt is well known within the Wikipedia community and thus is mentioned in Wikipedia articles disproportionately to his actual notability. ChazBeckett 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• No comment -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Take two steps back and look at this. It's ludicrous from any angle other than from the roll of eternal role of bureaucratic red-tape. Process rightly ignored. --Mus Musculus 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Borderline notability, not worth the trouble. If things change in the future we can create a new bio. As for the process, sometimes being bold and ignoring the rules helps the encyclopedia. I think this is such a case. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we've erred on the side of recklessness, not boldness. A bold action would have been to reduce the article to a stub if in fact it ran afowl of WP:BLP, which has not been satisfactorily asserted. —freak(talk) 18:20, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. On principle. Hey, we gave the benefit of doubt for GNAA and went through AfD, right? Never mind we were a bit hasty closing that and a bit fuzzy on DRV, those were just small details - but speedy-deleting this whole thing just doesn't do, unless you dictate that exact same standard everywhere else, all the time. People, if you're saying "well, the end result is the same thing" - that's not the point; we need to follow the procedures, if only in general terms. Do you really want to generalise "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?" as "CSD G13: Too much red tape, let's just delete damn thing because I say so" (with the corresponding Speedy Undeletion criteria "Damn, are you on crack? Let's keep this anyway because I say so.") Arbitrariness begets arbitrariness... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Holy cow. If we get a massive wheel war and Jimbo has to take out the big guns and send folks to ArbCom, I'm pretty certain that's a good indication that the deletion process was pretty clearly not followed, no? So can we get this done by the book? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Why has this been deleted? SqueakBox 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn.

1. The subject of the article meets every notability guideline.
2. This sets a very bad precedent for others who dislike their articles.
3. The disregard for process exposes the deletionist slant of the recent speedy deletion plague.
4. The disregard for process exposes flaws in the even more problematic deletion review process, where an article with 32 references is not even available for editors to review while discussing the DRV.
5. I am personally very tired of having to respond to the whims of admins who make unilateral decisions like this. It is a gross circumvention of consensus-based process.
6. Anyone who thinks this is going to stop Daniel Brandt from trolling Wikipedia is living in a dream world. Now that his life's work has been rendered essentially worthless by content aggregation sites like Google and collaborative databases like Wikipedia, this is his raison d'être. The only reason he is not going to object to the lack of transparency in this case is because it's going his way.

I personally feel that any article with an assertion of notability and multiple citations should never be speedily deleted like this. This is a much larger issue than this specific article, and caving on this case is going to send us down a slippery slope. -- Jokestress 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really get into this full length, but I'll try to get on IRC during a lecture. Yanksox 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of us do not have access to IRC, can you please make your comments on the talk page here instead? (jarbarf) 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, seems I won't be getting it during a lecture anyways, I can't connect. I'm going to be out tonight and passing in papers for my passport so I most likely won't be around till tomorrow afternoon (EST). Yanksox 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: We're all wasting time here when we could be doing something, anything, more productive. -- Heligoland 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Utterly, horrifically out-of-process deletion. The fact that people are endorsing the deletion when the whole purpose of DRV is to judge the deletion process is incredibly disturbing. Subject meets all notability guidelines. Article has survived something like 12 AfDs. The wishes of the subject are completely and utterly irrelevant. jgpTC 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And support ban for Yanksox, given his highly insulting deletion summary "Are you people even human?". jgpTC 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Un-huh, if you want to ban me, go to arbcom. Yanksox 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article Process wankery (not a typo) aside, this article should be deleted. Of the "33 sources," except for the ones concerning his opposition to the Vietnam War, only three of them were independent, reliable and had him as their subject. I could not check the earlier articles about his anti-war protests, but they do not appear to focus primarily on him either and, anyway, no one seems to think he is a notable war protestor, just one of many. The three sources make him borderline notable, so the article is optional. Given that, we should both avoid the WP:SELF-type problems here and defer to the subject's wishes (whatever we think about him). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I don't endorse any wheel war, but this article should have been deleted a long time ago. --BigDT 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the admin who blocked the page and deleted the talk page is the one who should be up in front of the arbcom. This is the worst single thing I have ever seen on wikipedia, it is a quite appalling defiance of wikipedia process, SqueakBox 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is a disgrace to itself at times. Nothing is written in stone, hell that's the whole purpose of this thing, it lives and changes. Go ahead, take me to arbcom if it gives you some closure. Yanksox 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as this sets a bad precedent and I think a lot of people here are just deleting it to get Brandt off of our backs. He is notable; end of story. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear lord, when were we at war? This is pathetic, there is nothing to be proud of and everything to be ashamed of. Yanksox 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Absolutely. The article should be reviewed and then deleted or not. To dlete and review is shameful and disres[pects those of us who have legitimately worked on making it into a good article. Doubtless George W. Bush will be next, SqueakBox 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • What the heck are you even reading here? Where did I mention a war? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Advertising, subject not notable, does nothing to further the encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact and we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot. To maintain this one article on a marginally notable person would require scores and scores of manhours from Jimbo on down. Therefore having this article is a net subtraction from the encyclopedia. Not worth it. Herostratus 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Man-months have been spent building the article and rigorously sourcing every statement therein. The path of one man's least resistance is a slap to another's face. —freak(talk) 21:16, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Can somebody please explain me why the regular AFD process is not used and why the page is blanked during this review? Andries 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that, as it stands, there is not going to be a consensus here. As I see it, most of the people voting endorse deletion are doing so because they feel that the article was not sufficiently notable to justify a place on Wikipedia, which is a very valid argument. Moving over to those that are voting overturn, a fair proportion are doing so on the basis that the article should only be deleted under the proper process otherwise a bad precedent is set, something I am inclined to agree with. In my personal opinion, I think the best way to stop taking up a whole lot more of our valuable time on this argument would to be restore the article and then re-list it on articles for deletion. That way we could all discuss the actual article rather than the circumstances surrounding it. Feel free to disagree with me, but I just wanted to make the suggestion. Will (aka Wimt) 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) That was already tried, but resulted in more wheel warring and wikilawyering. We need a discussion on the article, not the process. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then someone needs to put that in big shiny letters at the top. If you read the description of what this should be about at WP:DRV, then most of these comments are invalid. Trebor 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm revoking your WikiLawLicense :-). You can pretend this dicussion is at Wikipedia: WTF should we do about the Daniel Brandt article? if it makes you feel any better. I would have preferred that this discussion take place at AfD too, and the admins who are wheel warring about this should be censured. But the important thing is to actually have the dicussion, rather than to nitpick about proper forum questions. WP:NOT a bureaucracy and WP:IAR are of particular importance in cases like this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any consensus can be reached when half the people are commenting on the content and the other half on the process. Trebor 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Why is this being done this way? Lets not set a bad precedent.--Tom 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, made out of process, under no valid CSD. Αργυριου (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion for reasons above. Jonathunder 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wow, I never thought I'd be invoking WP:IAR, but I am. Taking a strictly positivist approach, I'd have to say that Brandt is notable under WP:BIO. But this article and the cloud surrounding it represent undue weight given to this issue, which is essentially a drawn-out self-reference. I agree with editors above, that this creates a precedent, but I disagree that it's necessarily a bad precedent. It's incredibly narrow in application, and would prevent a distortion of the material in the encyclopaedia: process must serve the content. — mholland 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Are we supposed to be discussing the content of the article, or the process by which it was deleted? If the latter, then overturn and relist on AfD, as this was an abuse of administrator power. —Psychonaut 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• We should be discussing the article. The place for discussing allegedly rogue admins is either Request for comment or the arbcom, SqueakBox 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore article and check new users for Daniel Brandt sockpuppets. --Tontoncontintin 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — Tontoncontintin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The more interesting question is whose sockpuppet you are. – Steel 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Was Yanksox a Daniel Brandt sockpuppet? Inquiring Minds Want To Know!™ Αργυριου (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Only more interesting if Tonton is also a banned user. otherwise the Brandt sockpuppetry issue is more importna t as the contribs of banned users are subject to revert, SqueakBox 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I applaud Yanksox's bold action. This subject never met the first criteria of WP:BIO which is "multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." There was only one referernce that used Brandt as a subject (from a San Antonio newspaper). Every other referernce made trivial mention of Brandt's anti-Wikipedia and anti-Google stance. It's well past the time where this article should have been deleted. It's also time that a look should be given at Brandt's community ban. One of the apologies for Wikipedia during the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy was that Seigenthaler could have just removed the vandalism. Brandt hasn't been able to do this for over a year! Semi-notable people should have the right, due to privacy, to request their articles removed. Supposedly they have the ability through WP:OFFICE and I know that he's written letters to the foundation, so I wonder why this article was never deleted through that process. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who has had their article deleted? --Tom 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The page wasn't deleted through WP:OFFICE because there was no good justification for so doing. Just because people complain does not mean their complaints or valid or that we must reply to them. Johntex\^talk 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Malber, your claim is factually incorrect. There are several articles listed in the references of Daniel Brandt which are primarily about him, including about activities which have nothing to do with his conflict with Wikipedia. Αργυριου (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Only one uses Brandt as a primary subject. The rest mention him in one or two paragraphs. WP:BIO requires multiple. Add to that the subject has repeatedly requested through several channels including the foundation that this article be deleted, the action of an admin to speedy it is righteous, though long overdue. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AFD - seriously out of process. Deletion review is about process, not the article itself. Process was not followed. Everyone arguing about the article would have their chance at AFD, as it is, people who aren't admins don't get to see the article, so are seriously handicapped in the argument. When people could see the article, it survived quite a few AFDs. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - This is a valid article and there it should be kept. Beyond that, deleting it in this particular manner was disruptive. The person who did so should be warned against similar behavior in the future. serve a one month block for their disruptive deletion as well as for their incivil comments here on this thread. Johntex\^talk 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know why people make ridiculous comments like that when they know it's not going to happen. – Steel 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• They are very angry. WP:TIGERS Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel, If you are so confident about that then why bother commenting? Clearly Yanksox should serve a block for disruption to the project and incivility to the community. Johntex\^talk 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocks are preventative, not punative. Blocks require warnings, not just blocking people. Let's get the WP:MASTODONS under control, here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware our policy is that "blocks are preventative, not punative". Yet, we routingely block people for more than an hour, more than a day, etc. Why bother to do that if we just want to prevent them from immediately doing something wrong? The reality is that it is also a penalty. If you want to think of a one month block as being reventative, then fine - it will prevent him from doing something similar for one month. At this point, I see that he has been desysopped instead. That is probably an even better choice. Hooray for Jimbo. Johntex\^talk 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many endorsements of his actions, so disruption is the wrong word to use. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this is clearly disruptive, this action and subsequent DRV has distracted quite a few editors from editing, which is the definition of disrtuption. That some have endorsed it does not lessen the disruption. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

No one is forcing anyone to come comment here. How is it disruptive exactly? Why is it so many endorse? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - The deletion was completely against procedure, an article this controversial should never be speedied, or even Prod'd, but should always go to AfD. Just because one admin gets fed up with following the rules doesn't mean that he can do what he wants. Instead I think it means that he should no longer be an admin, since I don't know how the community is supposed to trust him anymore. --Maelwys 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Tango. Speedy deletion is not appropriate in cases like this. TacoDeposit 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. Speedy deletion is absolutely not appropriate for cases like this, and the speedying of this article was a serious abuse of admin powers which I hope will meet with an appropriate response from the ArbCom. However, I do think there's a good case for deleting the article - I support taking it to AfD. -- ChrisO 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This is silly. A very valid use of WP:IAR, IMO. Marginal notability, and the person in question objects to the article. Just, let it go already. FCYTravis 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Would it were that simple. WP:IAR can be used both ways and this clealry wont dioe down whatever happens for a long while, SqueakBox 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's so straight forward, you should be able to convince an AFD. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per the many AfDs. (edit conflict) -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Do you think the deletion of this page will stop DB from outing us on his website? If so, keep it deleted; if not, why would deletion/undeletion matter? Scobell302 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Eloquence. The question should never be BLP concerns; if there are some, we can delete the libelous statements and start over. I see no libel on this article, and notability has been asserted. Ral315 » 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge with Brian Peppers, GNAA, Esperanza, and Category:7 year old Wikipedians to create a new super article entitled "WHEEL WAR... ON WHEELS!". No, but seriously. It's absolutely impossible for the Wikipedia community to look at this article objectively anymore. Any further discussion on the matter will be just like this one — mindless application of BLP, IAR, ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT, ITSURVIVEDAFDABILLIONTIMES. Also it should be noted that this is yet another instance of an article being speedied inappropriately and getting an Afd debate at DRV instead of a DRV debate at DRV. --- RockMFR 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. While deleting something via IAR instead of AFD isn't that big of a deal, throwing up all of these bureaucratic roadblocks to restoring it is. Yes, admins can take unilateral action, but only if not opposed by other admins. When someone undid it, it should have gone to AFD - which probably should speedy keep it, given the absurd number of past nominations. You don't get to keep gaming the system until you manage to catch enough people unaware to make it slip through. -- Jake 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The action was entirely out of process and completely uncalled-for regardless of whether the article should have actually been deleted. The article has gone through many Article for Deletion debates and survived. Who entitled YankSox to decide all that didn't matter? And why is he getting barnstars for this? There are many deserving people on Wikipedia who have yet to receive any sort of decent commendation, and yet rouge YankSox – clearly desiring to go out with a bang – gets hosannas all around. I am shocked and, in some ways, embarrassed; situations like these are precisely what pit some members of the Wikipedia community against admins. Sorry, YankSox, I'm not falling for it; I refuse to accept your unilateral action, incivility, and wheel-warring – let alone reward you for it. -- tariqabjotu 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think you do not know the meaning of the Ed Poor barnstar. Ed Poor is the administrator who once deleted the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page, causing a severe server slowdown for several minutes, and ending up with the creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion after the ensuing discussion. --cesarb 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse because the man is barely notable. This man isn't George W. Bush or Tony Blair or even Vanna White, he's just a guy who got a bit of press for doing stuff. He's not very important or worthy of coverage, and the whole privacy issue just exacerbates the situation. The trouble isn't worth it for someone as minor as him. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC) I have changed my vote below.

• • And to expand on it, RockMFR makes a great point: intentionally or accidentally, we are now inherently biased in one way or another towards Mr. Brandt. While he's trying to campaign against Wikipedia's current practices, he's upsetting the contributors. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)I have changed my vote below.
    • Do you believe deleting this article will change any of that? —freak(talk) 21:37, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Disagree. I imagine almost every UK editor has an even stronger opinion on Tony Blair, but that doesn't mean they can't keep that bias at bay while editing that article; similarly, just because many may have opinions about Brandt, that doesn't mean the community can't be trusted to make decisions about his article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Gross misuse of speedy deletion, which is not to be used for deleting controversial articles, especially not those that have already failed an AfD. --Delirium 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Even more especially those which have failed an Afd 8 or so times. The fallout from this is a matter of time, I believe this a case of admin abuse that we need to take to rthe arbcom within a week, SqueakBox 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Per DocG. Notability marginal. Subject strongly objects. Frankly what's the point of devoting any more time to this page when this encyclopaedia still has vast and significant areas of knowledge which are barely covered? --Folantin 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I would prefer the article to be there and he has sufficient notability to merit it, but not sufficient to retain it at all costs. All factors have to be taken into account and one of them is that the subject seems to have experienced long term aggravation. I don't think it's going to harm wikipedia to let this one go for now, and will be to its credit as a mature decision. Tyrenius 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you think deleting the article will stop him from attacking Wikipedia and its contributors, I think the joke would ultimately be on you. Even he did completely disappear, it disgusts me that you would use Wikipedia as bargaining chip in that manner. —freak(talk) 21:35, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you're talking about apart from some wild assumption. I'm not concerned with his actions: I'm concerned with ours. He's welcome to carry on attacking. I can't say I've had any sleepless nights over it. Kindly withdraw your rash comments. Tyrenius 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't understand. What "costs" (associated with keeping the article) are you referring to, if not the casualties resulting from Brandt's incessant complaints, trolling, baseless legal threats, and cyberstalking of a few dozen Wikipedia personnel in various external sites? Why would you "welcome" him to continue in this manner (although he undoubtedly will, regardless of what you and I have to say about it)? Your reply upsets me to an even greater degree. Please clarify what financial or moral expenses you feel would be spared by deleting this article. —freak(talk) 22:19, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
        • We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I'm using "not at all costs" as an expression meaning it's not worth busting a gut over: it does not have specific content or implications. I'm using "he's welcome" as an expression, which is ironic and means the opposite of "I welcome", but implying that we should not allow ourselves to get dragged down to the same level. Tyrenius 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/ Send to AFD The only reason why this was deleted is because Yanksox wants to tell the whole world that he's leaving. I would have said endorse otherwise, but misusing your tools and running away, and especially going behind the community's back is also wrong. It's a well-established article, we've put in a lot of time on it and consensus has been reached that this guy's clearly notable. There's this thing, you know... it's called the community. Let's do this the right way. This is not how we do things. —Pilotguy push to talk 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as an out of process A7 - it most definitely expressed notability. Whether or not it meets BLP, etc., is all stuff that should be discussed at an AFD, but having an admin suddenly delete it out of the blue without any prior warning that I can see is a bad scene. (As we can plainly see.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per results of the recent AfD. --Elonka 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing comment pending further investigation. --Elonka 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• What recent afd. All the afd's have striongly opposed deletion so if you want to follow that....SqueakBox 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• The one that was closed early out of pro-arghhhhhhhh... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Doc Glasgow, Moreschi, Malber, and Herostratus. I don't give a monkey's what Brandt does, but I do care what we do. Somebody said something once about making the internet not suck, no? An unsucky encyclopedia, confronted by a very minor figure who really didn't want to be included, wouldn't include them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn but list at AFD - process is important! Yanksox must have gone postal or something; we need to talk about this before it was deleted. DRV is not the place to discuss wether an article should be deleted. PTO 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I hate to say this, since I think this whole thing is silly, but process is important. speedy relist; not a CSD. To all the endorse !voters, DRV is _not_ AFD. Go !vote delete in the AFD if you must; I certainly will. But I will not endorse this egregious violation of process and policy. As for the "no consensus to relist"? Consensus can sometimes be wrong. --Random832 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I think the only reason Brandt had an article is because he criticized Wikipedia, not because he's notable in his own right. Neutrality issues are even worse than Bogdanov Affair. Steps taken by Yanksox are regrettable but don't require AfD review. Ashibaka (tock) 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• What? You mean one editor can unilaterally decide to delete an article with all opposition stonewalled. is there a new policy I am missing? SqueakBox 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you care to look through this page you'll see considerably more than one editor endorsing deletion. Tyrenius 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thats not the poit. We are entitled to an afd, SqueakBox 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• It was the point you made. The DRV seems to be doing a more thorough job than the AfD did. Tyrenius 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I think this is starting down a slippery slope of removing any content that a particular subject objects to even if it is verifiable just because it seems to be too much work to maintain the article. Maybe Brandt doens't merit an article, but the reasons for unilaterally deleting this are all wrong. I also want to tip my hat in advance to whomever decides to tackle closing this DRV. Whatever the outcome they are pretty sure to take flak.--Isotope23 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, from the looks of things, it's going to get set back to AfD as a no consensus, which is where it probably belonged in the first place. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Keep deleted. The project is not worse off without the article, and it's time we moved on. We've grown past this. The process was less than optimal but the result is favorable. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• The project is considerably worse off without this article, SqueakBox 22:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• How is it worse off? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Exactly what I was going to say. If you have any reason other than "OMG can't give into pressure," let's hear it. If that's your argument, it doesn't hold water - we're an encyclopedia, not a battleground, and we absolutely must get past this silly, juvenile "John Doe doesn't want an article SO HE MUST HAVE ONE" mentality. FCYTravis 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You created this article? What has changed. Daniel got you scared? SqueakBox 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • SlimVirgin has always been in favor of cooperation with Daniel (to a reasonable extent, of course). Ashibaka (tock) 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well so am I buit this isnt reasonable (I would have ben the first to delete inappropritate material in his article), SqueakBox 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason? —freak(talk) 22:26, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Freak and Squeakbox, my reasoning is that he's only borderline notable, and that anyone who's borderline notable should have the right to have their bios deleted on request. The only reason I created the article in the first place, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, is because I saw his name used in an article as a source, and it was a red link. I usually remove red links, but I'd been recently been told off for doing that, so I decided to create a stub so it turned into a blue link. Brandt turned up objecting to one of the external links I'd included, and we went back and forth for a bit but couldn't agree. He asked that the stub be deleted and so I deleted it, because he and I were the only ones who'd edited it at that point. I think it would have stayed deleted, but he started talking about it on a blog, and the blog owner turned up and re-created it. Brandt is definitely more notable now than he was then, but only because of his objections to the article, which encouraged him to involve himself in the Siegenthaler affair, leading to a mention in the New York Times. If he's a public figure, he's one we have created, or have helped him to create. Either way, I think the whole issue should be allowed to die down, if that's what he wants. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation, SqueakBox 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Heligoland. 1ne 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• In terms of disruption and fallout I for one will not edit wikipedia except with this issue from now on and urge others to do the same as long as wikipedia backs banned users over good faith users, SqueakBox 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again with the vindictive, petty "he's banned, we don't like him, SO HE MUST HAVE AN ARTICLE!!!11!!1!!one!eleventy!1'" mentality. Sir, that will not fly one moment longer. FCYTravis 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. The article existed long before he was banned, and before he even made his first edit. The article was kept several times when he was a member of the community, and several times thereafter. What's changed since then, other than the increasing number of times he has been mentioned in the media. —freak(talk) 22:49, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)

His having an article has nothing to do with him being banned. But what does have to do with him being banned is not giving him rights here, SqueakBox 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, there's no good reason to delete an article about a clearly notable person. —Nightstallion (?) 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn to AfD I am not convinced that DRV is the correct place to make this decision, mostly because the subject did not fit any speedy deletion criteria—in fact, it did quite a good job of establishing notablity. He's more notable than a decent amount of articles here, and should not be graded on an exceptional scale. DRV does not reach the same amount of wikipedians as AFD, and it appears that a large amount of editors voting here have been tangled up in the conflict for a long time, and cannot hold an objective view about the article itself, skewing the consensus. Come on, even the deletion summary was more about politics than content. Sorry if you have a problem maintaining an article, but if we really wanted to get rid of problematic articles, we would have deleted most of the encyclopedia by now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently, Jimbo has desysoped me. Frankly, I think this is a little farther than this should have gone. This is the only instance of a "wheel war," and I have used my tools to benefit the project. This is troubling. Yanksox 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comment on WP:ANI in case people haven't seen it. Trebor 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wow! Fantastico! Lets hope the community takes this on board and I am back in the project, SqueakBox 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Don't be a prick about everything. Apparently, I'm not the only one[2]. Yanksox 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, I'm sure Yanksox had good intentions but with the controversial nature of the article, it would seem to me better to leave it to AfD. I understand the article has gone through AfD multiple times, but so did GNAA, and it was eventually canned. I wouldn't have any problem with Yanksox's speedy deletion if this was SaiGAR 2007 (something exponentially less notable) and not Daniel Brandt we were talking about. --Merovingian ※ Talk 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I think Brandt's position re: Wikipedia has been a barrier to properly discussing (and deleting) what is a fairly non-notable article. --InkSplotch 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted. First, about this being appropriate or not to DRV: the reason DRV focuses on whether the deletion process instead of the article's merits is because it was being used (back when it was still VfU) as a sort of "second round" of VfD; focusing on whether the deletion (or VfD closure) was correct or not (in particular, whether the votes were counted correctly; remember this is from the VfD days), instead of rehashing the same arguments already made on VfD, avoided that. In the particular case of this article, since it was not deleted on AfD, prod, or even normal speedy deletion, debating on the merits of the article itself does not cause that problem (it's not rehashing the AfD debate, since there was none). That said, my opinion is that, while some of the websites/organizations he created/is a member of might be notable, he himself is below the threshold of notability; not only that, Wikipedia's threshold of inclusion has been rising (articles that would have been accepted some time ago no longer are considered acceptable for inclusion), so the fact that it has survived AfD some time ago is not reason for it being kept. --cesarb 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and relist'. The SNOWballing was ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• MESSEDROCKER SOLUTION II - I am a bit nervous about my latest plan (especially since I chose to name it after myself again; I'm such a damn egoist), but I think others have said stuff like this. What we ought to do is cut up the article into pieces, right? Keep in the sourced parts, and integrate them into relevant articles such as Criticism of Wikipedia. The goal of this is to preserve information about him and to give Mr. Brandt the benefit of being mentioned less conspicuously than before. Just like with Esperanza, this is essentially deletion yet unlike deletion we don't have to erase mentioning of a Wikipedia critic (which has earned us ire in the past). As with my other named plan, feel free to refer to this idea with the shorthand of "Messedrocker Solution II". —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The time when we were obsessed with such navel gazing should be over by now. Doc said it all. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. I think Brandt qualifies under the notability guidelines. We perhaps (for the general case) need to decide if a subject's desire to have an article deleted should be a factor in a deletion discussion. Above all, I think the out-of-process deletion has led to a discussion which has conflated the issue of content and process. Given that, I cannot see how a consensus can be judged, and think an AfD would be the best course of action. Trebor 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted because of WP:BLP and because of all the trouble it has caused. ElinorD (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD. As much as I'd love to endorse deletion here and be done with it, process is important. BryanG^(talk) 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• List on AFD. A lot of people above are saying that "we need to discuss this and since it's already at DRV, this is as good a place as any". I must say I disagree. DRV is fairly insular. Most editors don't come here. Who knows about this discussion? Only people who watch DRV, ANI, Jimbo's talk page, or IRC. Look through the names here in this discussion. How many names do you recognize? Almost all of them. There is a much wider segment of the community who take part in AFD discussion, and we need their input too. Process isn't just important for process's sake; the processes in place are meant to contribute to a better Wikipedia and that's why we use them. This isn't a discussion that can take place simply anywhere. The article asserts notability and arguably may pass WP:BIO, so an A7 doesn't apply, and if an A7 doesn't apply then we need the input of as wide a segment of the community as possible. That's what we'll get at AFD. — coelacan talk — 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist. - The way process was ignored here is a complete traveshamockery. Give us an AfD and let us SEE the article so we can evaluate the claims of those who decided so unilaterally to delete it. Merzbow 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, blatantly out of process deletion that's sparked one of our worse wheel wars in recent memory. Given the controversy surrounding this case, anything other than a proper, process following resolution to this is unacceptable. --tjstrf talk 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Whilst I feel Brandt's notability is certainly in question, I'm growing sick of renegade sysops making crazy decisions - then attempting to steamroller them through citing IAR, SNOW and the like. The deletion should be overturned, and let's do this properly (via AfD), please Glen 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Having article is not worth the hassle and does not substantially add to Wikipedia. Also side issue of "he's got to be notable and thus have a page because he is critical of Wikipedia".--Silver31u 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Glen and Freaktalk. Just H^{editor review} 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The Glen two !votes above who said "overturn"?? Trebor 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly. Glen admitted that the subject's notability is in question - so what does it matter that a "renegade sysop" decided to delete it, rather than one of the presumably non-renegade sysops? FCYTravis 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It just confused me to support a position using an opposing vote. Trebor 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with Glen's sentiment, but for the opposite reason (WP:BLP and WP:N not being met) -- policy should always be followed unless there is gridlock harming attempts at consensus (in which WP:IAR should be followed in a short burst to put things back on track). Just H^{editor review} 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • When an article is this contentious and has already been through multiple AfDs, the responsible thing to do would have been to follow process and propose another AfD. Summary deletion is about the least effective thing that could have been done - you can see for yourself the effect that it's had. -- ChrisO 00:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I thought that was what I said. I don't agree with Glen's opinion on whether or not the article should be deleted, but I do agree with his sentiment that process should be followed. My apologies for the confusion. Just H^{editor review} 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I haven't had time to catch up on the contents of this incredibly busy DRV, but I'm familiar with the circumstances of the deletion itself and it was wildly out of order IMO. The article didn't clearly meet any criteria for speedy deletion and the article has been on AfD numerous times with "keep" results. If Yanksox wanted it gone he should have taken it through AfD, or if he felt the previous AfDs had been interpreted incorrectly he should have brought it here. Bryan Derksen 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse Deletion' - looking at the bigger picture, I was prepared to take this to AfD myself. I don't see any major benefit to keeping this article. I do see an article about NameBase being prudent but really, Daniel doesn't care for an article and to be honest, I doubt anyone is really going to want to know information about him. He's no public figure -- Tawker 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit - I'm not happy with the personal attacks and the other stuff that occurred on the deletion log, that looked pretty childish but, on the simple matter of the article being deleted or not, I endorse. On the means the deletion (and wheel wars) were carried out, I completely object -- Tawker 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. There are situations where process needs to take a back seat to more important considerations, among them WP:BLP and privacy and legal concerns. Long overdue. This article repeatedly being kept following AfD debates was a breakdown in the AfD process. Sometimes ya just gotta be WP:BOLD and do the Right Thing, regardless. Dragomiloff 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but not the conduct of the admins that perpetuated this mess. WP:BLP is emphatically and explicitly not a justifiable reason for speedy deletion. Nobody would have been harmed by putting the article through AFD, to allow discussion. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. It's clear that the article was on a questionably notable subject (personally, I'd vote delete in an AFD). However, given the contentiousness of the article, the selfrighteousness of some of our more senior editors in insisting that deleting this was The Right Thing To Do, and labelling any objections as "process-wankery", is both cretinous and exceptionally disheartening. The recent deluge of hasty deletions leading to wheel-wars, and the deliberate stifling of discussion through misapplications of WP:SNOW - if there's even one objection to the evolving consensus, WP:SNOW should not apply - are similarly disconcerting. Personally, I'll be happy to see the article gone. I have no issues with the deletion happening, but rather the way it took place. The IAR! IAR! IAR! manner in which it has been done, and the dismissive tone of those who brush aside requests about "where was the community's opportunity to discuss this" as process-wonkery and wikilawyering are very much not what this place is meant to be. Proto ► 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to nominate IAR for deletion, considering all the problems it causes us. :-) -- ChrisO 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just exercise IAR and delete it out of process? It would have to go through DRV to be undeleted, as the rules couldn't be ignored anymore.... JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange I had a similar dream. In the dream I IAR deleted Wikipedia:Deletion review itself. Some process lover went to undelete it, and then realised that would be 'out of process', so he went to take it to DRV.........and then he thought, and his head exploded ;) --Doc^g 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This really did make me lol. — coelacan talk — 05:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In my darker hours, I have indeed considered speedily deleting IAR, as it is now being used as a lump hammer rather than a mop. Proto ► 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This incident convinced me that WP:IAR should be demoted to become an essay. Andries 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean it's not already? --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR is useful. What we need is Wikipedia:"Ignore all rules" doesn't mean that you can do whatever the fuck you want just because you think you're right. --Conti|✉ 01:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Too true. As I see it the reason for IAR is an attempted remedy of the over-literal interpretation of policy at the expense of raw common sense, rather than an excuse to push agendas. Orderinchaos78 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary line break

• Endorse deletion Really no reason to keep it. All notability is contained in other articles. Oh, and salt it so the wheel warring stops. --Tbeatty 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, by definition wheel warring cannot be stopped by salting ;) Glen 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. Deletion is perhaps worth considering, but only through the proper process. The desysopping of Yanksox is highly encouraging; such behavior should not be tolerated. The desysoppings of Geni and Freakofnurture were, on the other hand, very wrong. Everyking 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as per User:Doc glasgow above and per User:Jimbo Wales per this comment he made a while back: [3] Yep, sounds relevant to me. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, in 2005, Jimbo said of Brandt: "He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all." —freak(talk) 02:52, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but not the conduct of the admins involved per Proto. It's about time we moved on from this Brandt mess and looked forward, but proper discussion would have been much better. Rather disappointing. – riana_dzasta 02:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an unusual statement Riana! Doesnt endorsing the deletion actually endorse the deletion!? This why I believe it has to go through AfD; a) As otherwise the community will never fully accept the decision (as it was out of process) and b) by endorsing the out of process deletion we're endorsing the out of process behaviour - just my $0.02 anyway Glen 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Just not notable enough to make any project purporting to be an encyclopedia, even this one.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on same grounds as riana_dzasta and Proto above. Also, the article should have been deleted a long time ago on notability grounds, and it's not as if we can even claim vanity as the subject himself wanted it deleted. The whole deal makes the issue and the person so much bigger than they really are. Orderinchaos78 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• List on AFD per Coelacan. I noticed this was on AfD this morning but didn't have time to comment before all hell broke loose. And now I've spent the better part of a Friday night trying to figure out what insanity took place today. Once it's back on AfD, and I can read the "current" version of the article, only then will I (and 99% of Wikipedia editors) be in a position to adequately discuss whether or not this article should be deleted. Risker 03:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment: Just thought I would point out that I knew who Daniel Brandt was ages before my first Wikipedia edit, and I am sure I am not the only one. Risker 03:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD, keep open, and organize discussion in such a way as to have a chance of obtaining consensus. This is an exceptional situation, and the way to deal with such situations is to follow scrupulous fair process, take no short cuts, and discuss it on its merits as if it were not exceptional.

There is a real question about the applicability of BLP to famous people. I would probably support removing person data he did not want to have disclosed, and of course data that could not be sourced. But a public figure has no right to have us remove an objective article based on clearly citable sources about his public life . This is all the more so with a public figure who is public of his own volition: he is not an unfortunate private citizen who happens to become newsworthy. He actively disseminates his opinions, and objects to our article because he does not like what we consider to be an objective view. The article in the current Google cache appears to me objective and fair; it shows him in the light in which he himself shows himself, and refers to no private information. He has no right to object, and his objections should be ignored. I agree that in a borderline case the wishes of the subject should be consulted, but this is not a borderline case. We do not seem to have any formal mechanism for dealing with continual AfDs, but we should. I would think it reasonable that, if this article is kept in a fair AfD, that attempts to disturb it within the next few months should be seen as disrupting WP. DGG 03:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist per the above. --Myles Long 04:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The article had lots and lots and lots of good citations, and the article subject was covered by major news sources. Smee 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Further comment: I still want the process followed, because I don't think it's just empty calories. DRV is too insular for the discussion that needs to be had, and we shouldn't be having two discussions at once (is it notable? was the deletion appropriate?) We need to have one discussion at a time. That's not what we're getting here. If we take it back to AFD we can just talk about the article, and then, after the five-day AFD cycle, if someone takes the result to DRV, we can just talk about the AFD result and yell "this is not AFD round 2!" whenever necessary. We don't have that option right now, and so we're getting a very nasty mix of the worst of AFD and the worst of DRV, and all the hostility that can come out of both. Plus desysopping. And then gloating over desysopping. Ugh. You know, call me a process hound if you like, but one of the nice things about following the processes that the community already put into place is that when they're applied evenly and consistently, the result usually feels fair, and those who end up on the "losing" side can walk away feeling disappointed but not robbed. If we just jump to the end without trying to establish consensus, the result is that everyone still feels like they were right and those who "lose" thus develop righteous indignation. I would rather take this slow, so the end result is nothing worse than "darn, that sucks", instead of wheel-warring and the nasty taste that so many here have been left with. — coelacan talk — 05:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with this. It should have been at AfD in the first place. Given the lack of consensus here, that's where it will end up anyway, plus ArbCom. Oh joy! ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. This abuse of the speedy deletion process followed by wheel warring disgusts me, and I feel that those involved should be desyso-- oh, wait. Silensor 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, wait two weeks, and relist. The specific act of deletion here was unacceptable behavior, and it has provoked a storm of similarly unacceptable behavior. The deletion itself needs to be overturned. However, the article should not be immediately relisted on AFD becaues doing so will allow the flamewar to continue. A moratorium of two weeks before it can be relisted, with immediate blocking and desysopping for anyone who lists it or deletes it until then, seems a good way to cool it down. --FOo 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Brilliant concept, though I fear two weeks may be too soon. —freak(talk) 06:54, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete article and do not immediately relist. The sensible course of action is to add a carefully-worded new section to our deletion policy to address cases like Brandt's. If borderline notability is to be a criterion, we certainly need to see an unambiguous definition of "borderline." I just might vote to delete after that, without worrying about sending the message that the only way to get one's bio deleted is to make Wikipedians miserable. (Digression: Personally, I think decisions to do courtesy deletion should be based less on the subject's level of notability and more on whether the subject is controversial. It is on controversial topics that we have the strongest mandate to cut through the biased crap out there and offer our readers NPOV coverage.) Regarding the events of today, there seems to be an idea that speedy deletion is a means for the higher ethical sensitivity of admins to prevail over the lower ethical sensitivity of the community. This idea is a) a gross misreading of speedy deletion policy, b) a what-planet-are-you-from misreading of what adminship is about, and c) an insult to pretty much everyone here. Kla'quot 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely strong endorse- WP:IAR, people. Actually, He could almost fall under A7 and maybe G10 sometimes. The only reason all those AfDs failed is because most of them were Brandt's sockpuppets. To be very honest, WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to me but thats not why I'm endorsing. Brandt is (not) notable for having two mionor websites, and if we delete this, we are just saving a load of trouble. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:58, Saturday, 24 February '07
• Endorse deletion He doesn't want it, and we don't need it. It's the right thing to do. Frise 07:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There are two strong issues which stand diametrically opposed to one another and a strong argument can be made both for endorsing the deletion and for overturning this. It is clear that Brandt has been highly upset about having an article about him, and his activities have not been of such a level that a biography about him is a neccesary part of Wikipedia in order to be complete. A look through the Googled cache version gives me the impression that the biography in its final state fails to fulfill WP:NPOV very well, the fact that Jimbo's letter to Editor & Publisher is given a full paragraph is giving undue weight to the people who oppose him. Considering Brandt's activities on Wikipedia, I think we will have a hard time writing a fully NPOV article about him, because I think there are lots of people here who dislike the person. A strong case for overturning can also be made, the article has gone through multiple attempts to delete, and the references listed in the bio clearly show multiple non-trivial coverages from independent sources, the conditions for WP:BIO. A consensus to keep, as made here and here should not be overturned lightly, and we are not supposed to let outside forces bully us into deciding what we should and should not have. The fact that Brandt's notability is due to actions of his own (in contrast to the Brian Peppers case), makes me feel that we do not need to pay that much heed to his wish to have the biography removed. I am very uncertain here, I'll need to think this through a lot before making a "!vote". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Brandt has always been at best very marginally notable, and when he doesn't want an article on himself, it's both completely unnecessary and inflammatory to keep it, especially in light of the NPOV concerns Sjakkalle raises above. Rebecca 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD. There are good arguments on both sides, for and against, keeping the article, and to be honest, I agree with those that think it should be deleted. The other argument, that he is notable, is true: the controversial subject of Internet privacy is probably a reason for such an article to exist: he is notable within this particular field, as sources [4] and [5] prove. We have articles on other people that are borderline notable too: but they meet WP:BIO too. Keeping the article within WP:BLP standards will be a challenge.

Also, the wheel-warring aspect of this is probably considered misuse of process, and a reason to allow the article to be relisted. The deletion was out-of-process, in my opinion. To quote AnonEmouse:

Deletion review is about process, not the article itself. Process was not followed. Everyone arguing about the article would have their chance at AFD, as it is, people who aren't admins don't get to see the article, so are seriously handicapped in the argument. When people could see the article, it survived quite a few AFDs.

AnonEmouse's argument is a good one, and I agree with this. Hopefully I have given enough well-formed reasons for overturning deletion. You may or may not agree with me, and I accept my views are probably controversial. I hope I have given good enough reasons. --sunstar net^talk 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn wow, what a shitstorm. Notable or not notable, this was not a CSD and deserves a chance at AfD. I'm amazed that some even support the speedy deletion. O_o (totally puzzled)  Grue  14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Another chance? 13th time unlucky you mean. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to compare this to Gay Nigger Association of America, but wait, it was deleted? At the 18th nomination? Holy crap, what's happening here?  Grue  14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the two are related on a policy level... GNAA never had sources, Brandt had dozens. GNAA desperately wanted the article, Brandt claimed to desperately not want it. I guess there's some broader change though, about being able to delete topics that were "untouchable" a year or so ago. Just a natural part of the fast expansion/turnover of the userbase. --W.marsh 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Overturn. I looked at the article in the history, and it's possibly salvageable. I think notability is indeed established, though that's just my opinion on that. If it should survive this deletion review, then an AFD might be appropriate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - We don't delete things because Brandt threatens to add our pretty pictures to his collection. There are literal shitstorms of stuff on Wikipedia which is a hell of a lot less notable than this, and unless we're going to extend CSD criteria to "subject wants deletion" then this has not been the right thing to do. I wouldn't however, mind the tightening of notability guidelines to wrestle out all this nn-crap on Wikipedia, but Brandt is not a special CSD case. - hahnchen 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn notabile, verifiable. This guy warrants an article even absent any wp advocacy. Rigorously enforce bio reference standards to avoid s/l,Edivorce 16:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Overturn - This wheel war focused on an admin pissing contest instead of our deletion policy. We do not delete articles on people who don't like us. We do not delete articles on people who do not want articles. We delete articles on non-notable subjects. Brandt is not a non-notable subject. Brandt's works against Google and Wikipedia have been featured in the press on multiple occasions. Yanksox, unfortunately, does not have the singlehanded capability to change the facts of Wikipedia. The problem is, the voters for 'endorse' want to give him that power. - ElbridgeGerry 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I cannot speak for others, but my view is not predicated on any action by administrators or others. I think that the wishes of the article subject should be respected as long as the subject is not clearly a public person and does not manifestly satisfy WP:BIO. Very few articles would be affected if this were done. Regarding the example mentioned above, I'd be surprised if Paris Hilton objected and, in any case, she is a very public person. The solution of incorporating the relevant content into other articles would appear to permit deletion without significant harm to Wikipedia. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - An earlier version of this article exists at User:SlimVirgin/Brandt. If this process ultimately ends in the deletion, the aforementioned article should probably get axed too. --- RockMFR 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and do not relist. The repeat Afds previously demonstrated the validity of the article. Let's not waste more time on this, but do sanction admins who violate process. --JJay 18:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. The subject meets notability standards. The subject's feelings should have no more influence over the existence of an article than its contents. Bucketsofg 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest that firm wise guidence of the process would be good leadership concerning this issue. There are important questions with regard to this article that need to be dealt with seperately and appropriately. The current overriding issue is the validity of the process itself. I suggest the arbcom result from the wheel war is evidence in and of itself that what has occurred so far is invalid and further that emotions are running high, therefore the correct process would be a delay of proceedings (two weeks?) and then a complete do-over of the process from step one. At that point, I suggest the question be raised as to whether or not we as a community wish to invoke IAR to delete the article; which has the benefit of not creating a precedent in terms of the interpretation of existing policy and guidelines so that Erik's issue of causing this deletion to result in other deletions is made moot. IAR has a downside as well which can be argued at that point and we as a community can choose whether to delete on the basis of IAR or progress to a debate of delete or not delete based on policy and guidelines as they exist or as we wish them to exist from now on. That debate should have two parts. First: what exactly is his noteability status compared to others we have articles on - in other words, if we delete this in part due to his semi-noteability, which other articles are now in play. Second, given that level of noteability (whatever is decided in the first part), how does the BLP policy apply and how should it apply (meaning changing the wording - with or without changing the meaning - is a possible result). IAR is looking good at this point if it is specifically pointed out that there ia no precedent being established. Except that it promotes IAR as a solution when it really should be a fallback and not an alternative to discussion. Some might say we have already had enough discussion and its time to use IAR on the article. I suggest that be the first issue raised in two weeks or so when the do-over occurs; but for now declare the current process invalid. WAS 4.250 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - People should read my comments above, in section break one. I hope they help. --sunstar net^talk 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• commentThough I suggested relisting earlier, I now modify this to relisting in three months. What is destructive to WP is not the article on DB. Its the lack of stability. All real world institutions have some mechanism for stability. A bill voted down in this congress can be introduced but not until the following session. I see no reason why this can not be written to BLP standards--it talks about what he said and did in public, and he can be quoted. Public figures have no right to privacy in their public doings, and he is someone who seeks publicity. He merely didnt want a NPOV article. DGG 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD. I wanted to sleep on it, did, and the stink that will remain from not contesting this does not smell any better in the morning. I am most worried about the aftereffects. Not in particular about article deletions, but rather that appeal to IAR, process-be-damned, "we're tired of this shit", and "because we want to", by so many admins, will have long-lasting bad results. Uncontested, this will be referenced by those wishing to justify their own bad behavior. Shenme 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. If none of the reasons for deletion ring true, the deletion should be reversed. If in doubt, don't delete. —freak(talk) 21:59, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. When confronted with the Gordian knot, Alexander the Great didn't worry about "process", he just chopped the Mo-Fo in half, immediately terminating the mindless question of how to untie it. It just didn't matter. And neither does this article. The subject is non-notable, and should've been gone long ago. It has served one purpose: we are now more accutely aware of the nature of BLP here, and are starting to honor it. Let us honor it in fact and not just in spirit, and put this poor guy, and this article, out of its misery.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember, oh remember, that while Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a master of solving situations in a very nice straightforward way like this, and conquered a huge chunk of known world at the time thanks to that skill, he also later died in somewhat unclear circumstances. We don't want that to happen, now do we? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Bad reasoning. Bad process. - Kittybrewster 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. This DRV itself shows that a speedy deletion was the patently incorrect action by an admin. One editor should not be able to trump consensus, which has been clearly established in multiple AfDs. Unless a policy reason for deletion can be produced, the consensus established at AfD should be honoured. Resolute 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion An article about someone of only marginal notability that is obviously far more trouble than its worth. As far as process goes, as no one is arguing that the article shouldn't be deleted for any reason other than the fact that its deletion was out of process, it's patently obvious at this point that if this went back to AfD it would die anyway, so what the heck is the point of putting it there and arguing for another five days just to achieve the same result? It's inefficient and hurts more than it helps. Process for process' sake is stupid in my opinion.--Dycedarg ж 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Patently false, Dyce. This article survived AfD before, and Brandt has been mentioned in the media multiple times. - ElbridgeGerry 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)\
    • Lots of people have been mentioned in the media multiple times. That doesn't mean that they are more than marginally notable or that more than a tiny fraction of the population cares the slightest bit about them. As for whether or not it is more trouble than it is worth, that statement can't be patently false because it is my opinion. Opinions are very rarely patently true or false. And lastly, my initial impression was that enough people here were voting overturn purely on the basis of whether or not the process was good that if brought to AFD it would not survive. Several people who are voting overturn have directly stated that they would vote for deletion on the AFD if it was brought there. Perhaps I was wrong and it would survive on a narrow no consensus vote. It still is simply not worth the trouble in my opinion to do so.--Dycedarg ж 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, Dyce. And nothing in our deletion policy says anything about being "worth the trouble". - ElbridgeGerry 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I never said there that the policy said anything of the sort. However, in cases of marginal notability people very often use their own judgment to decide whether or not they feel the article belongs on Wikipedia. And I am perfectly entitled to allow my judgment to be altered by any criteria I choose. If strict interpretation of policy were the only thing people ever used in deletion debates, then all AFD decisions would be unanimous, and if the facts were so totally in your favor as you seem to suggest, then this current debate would not be running at a 50/50 split.--Dycedarg ж 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. Notable and verifiable, per many others above. —Krellis (Talk) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The instant people start wheel warring to keep something deleted, I know it should not have been speedy deleted. If you want it deleted, then establish a consensus to do so; this just says "Well, I'm smarter than all you people". Seriously, what is wrong here? -Amarkov moo! 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Keep deleted and do not relist. Poor references, marginal notability. Editors' time would be best used in editing articles rather than flogging a dead horse. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But it's only dead because someone decided to shoot it despite a consensus saying not to. You can't just kill the horse and then expect people not to complain. And since this is a magical wiki horse, it doesn't have to stay dead. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • At this point, it's had endorsement of more than that one guy who killed it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • someone some people -Amarkov moo! 05:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Out of process deletion, clearly meets notability criteria, has survived multiple previous AfDs. JoshuaZ 06:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. No speedy deletion criteria was established and WP:IAR should not be elevated to a reason to delete articles. There is no urgency in this matter- the articles has existed for a long time. This is the forum for assessing process- the process was utterly flawed. AfD is the forum for determining whether articles need to be deleted. This article should be listed there as it should have been in the first place. I feel doing otherwise sets a precedent we may come to regret. Allowing WP:IAR to govern these cases will inevitably lead to wheel wars in the future, having to abide by community concensus will not. WjBscribe 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and re (re, re, re) list on AFD. If there are new arguments for deletion that have not been presented in the previous eleven discussions, they should be presented there. This was not a speedy candidate, and with nearly a dozen past AFDs that ended in keep, a speedy deletion should have been out of the question. If we're going to delete an article like this one, we need to do it right, and not through the back door. -- Vary | Talk 06:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please review and comment on a proposal for courtesy deletion for persons of borderline notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#Proposed_courtesy_deletion_for_persons_of_borderline_notability . Kla'quot 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe that Brandt is notable, but I do not believe that we can cover him in an NPOV fashion. I think that it would be impossible to do so. It must make Brandt upset to have Jimbo delete Brian Peppers' entry but not his. The truth is that Mr. Peppers' family was being tormented by Brian's actions, whereas Mr. Brandt really hasn't been hurt in any way by having an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is huge, and he certainly is notable to users of our site. He's not the Pope, but he's been written about in mainstream publications. He's even agreed to do interviews with such publications, which he had to know would cause these problems. I have nothing against his sites whatsoever, and I hope he keeps them online even if his article is deleted. However, this dispute has brought out the worst in some administrators, with insults, hacking exploits, and POV wikilawyering becoming more common. If the entry were to be removed, those practices would be reduced. So, in conclusion, I am uncertain whether it should be deleted or not.--Chaco55 08:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is Chaco55's second edit. Kla'quot 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Does it improve Wikipedia to have this article? Because of this nut's vendetta we lost Katefan0, the best admin I've ever seen. He's actively hunting for his next victim. It hurts, end of story. Ignore all rules, ditch it. Derex 10:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Brandt has already said that he will continue to "hunt victims", as you put it, even if the article is deleted. See [6]. Deleting the article won't end his anti-Wikipedia vendetta. -- ChrisO 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • People often talk a big game, but don't follow through. I also think it's true that if he weren't a critic, this would have been OTRS'd long ago. Derex 11:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That may indeed be a factor. But we shouldn't let our dislike for Brandt's thuggish tactics sway our decision on whether or not to keep the article. -- ChrisO 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • When those thuggish tactics include pouring great efforts into destroying the livelihoods of the contributors here, then I think we absolutely should let it sway us. I don't think Kate even had anything to do with Brandt or his article. There's no grand principle at stake here; the man barely even qualifies for an article. I also intend to hand over my wallet immediately to the next mugger, in abject deference to his thuggish tactics. Derex 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Given how long this clustermuck has gone on, I think both sides' moral resolve has been adequately demonstrated. Declare victory and get out. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• suggestion. This article deletion review shows that Wikipedia, as an organization, is having trouble. There is no reason to expect that our existing rules and procedures can constructively solve all of the challenges our community faces. There is nothing wrong with asking for help and trying a new method for dispute resolution. Three step process for getting help: 1) Clearly state the problem. Many people think Daniel Brandt should have a Wikipedia article because he is is a well-known political and privacy activist. Many people think Daniel Brandt is of marginal notability and everything that needs to be said about him can better be said within other Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia community has been unable to come to a happy agreement over deletion of the Daniel Brandt article. 2) Assemble an impartial internal panel. Assemble an internal panel of Wikipedians who have a past history of good edits in topic areas related to politics and privacy issues and who have not previously expressed a strong opinion about the Daniel Brandt article. 3) Invite reviews of the the Daniel Brandt article by external experts in topic areas related to political and privacy activism. The internal panel would identify and contact external experts and arrange for them to submit evaluations of the Daniel Brandt article. The external reviewers would be experts in areas related to the political and privacy issues raised in the Daniel Brandt article. The external reviewers would be asked to comment on the notability of Brandt and if there should be a Wikipedia article about him. At the end of a month, the internal panel would make public the list of experts consulted and all reviews received. The Wikipedia community would then make use of the external reviews to help resolve the existing conflict over this article. --JWSchmidt 15:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. I nominate you for the role of cheif organizer for this fine effort. WAS 4.250 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Could people please stop hurling personal attacks Brandt's way? And don't tell me, "He did it first!" I know, it doesn't matter. If you want to take the high road in this you'd treat the matter objectively. 'Cause no matter what threats Brandt has made against Wikipedia, calling him a thug/bully/someone who should burn in hell makes you all sound like spoiled brats. Indiawilliams 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, so I'm a "brat" for calling someone a name? Irony, thy name is India. At least I haven't tried to destroy any lives lately. Derex 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah you are, dude. This afair is a two-way street. Daniel's a brat for whining about an objective, NPOV article, and you're all brats for going "OMG WTF DANIEL BRANDT IS RUINING LIVES!!!!11!1" Unless the people in question have to wear paper bags on their heads when they walk down the street Brandt has 'ruined' diddly-squat. If someone calls me a bitch and I call them a bitch back it just makes us both look retarded. Indiawilliams 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep Getting rid of this article doesn't improve WP, so WP:IAR doesn't apply. Deletion was out of process. Process would have served us well in this instance, as the resulting firestorm has proved. Vadder 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Overturn and keep. The deletion would be against Wikipedia's rules. bogdan 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• K33P DEEEEL33T3D!!! Brandt's notable public contributions outside the expansive imagination of Wikipedia's seven-year-old collective mind are Namebase.org, and perhaps GoogleWatch and WikipediaWatch. The two "watch" sites are only marginally "notable" even by Wikipedi's effusive definition of "notability." The “watch” sites are among millions of topical web logs or similarly operated opinion-oriented sites, which would be better catalogued in list format with a similar level of detail for each entry rather than as "encyclopedic" articles selected according to the subjective whims of a random, anonymous crowd that happens to be around at any particular time. One of the founders and at least one former board member of Wikimedia Foundation have apparently decided such a listing would be better managed as a for-profit venture, and have hinted that they are working through their for-profit Wikipedia spin-off, Wikia, Inc. to develop a user-managed search engine that apparently would sort links for everything from blogs to Florida hotels.

The undue attention WP editors gave to Brandt's minor supporting role in helping the project mature and face its responsibilities as a public citizen results from Wikip's self-imposed policy of blindness, and maybe from some adolescent narcissism typical of an entity of Wikip's age. Those of us familiar with public-minded investigations know well what Namebase is, how it has been used and its role in the development of shared databases. We know Namebase quietly championed public collaboration and sharing of information long before WP pulled all the stops with a radical notion that immediate editorial access for anyone and everyone is more or less the only valid approach to sharing information. We know that NameBase is a noteworthy and widely used contribution to the public's ability to use intelligence-analysis techiques until then used exclusively by governments, criminal investigators and a few large corporations. Because Namebase is a research tool, the journalists, authors and advocates who use it, rarely cite it. The name of a bibliography, of a search engine, of a database or of a person on the street one consults to find sources is seldom included in articles composed for popular publication. If Wikipedia fairly cited the sources it uses for each and every article, Wikipedia too would be only a pass-through used by responsible writers to find verifiable, identifiable sources. Instead, Wikip has deprived readers of sources in many cases, and in other cases, lazy judges, journalists and students slide by with an "according to Wikipedia" reference without checking to see if they are really attributing information "according to user:ImAFreak" or "according to the Journal of Real Science" (if that is the source Wikip cites).

So what we have is a man who for decades quietly, without asking for name recognition and at considerable mortal peril published the names and affiliations of known spies and political operatives. He never configured his public contributions in a way that would exaggerate his persona. If operative A knows operative B according to NameBase and responsible author C can verify the sources D found in NameBase, Author C can lawfully, ethically and with all due respect to NameBase write that Operative A knows Operative B according to sources D without ever naming NameBase.

Contrary to the intuitively valid claim that acrimony over the Brandt article and that Brandt's minor role in the Seigenthaler affair, for which he received mention in a prominent newspaper, are the reasons an article bearing Brandt’s name has become a high-profile Wikip article, I suggest the collective psychology involves deeper causes. Young artists often prefer many fans, whereas older artists might be satisfied with a few loyal fans and a less hectic path from the venue door to the limo. Maybe Wikip's young mind wants recognition and is jealous that Brandt has long offered a similar service, never asking recognition even as countless writers relied on his research to compose their exposes. In that young mind that can barely yet account for its own behavior, Brandt's notability is all about his role in Wikiped, because, well, Wikiped is the most important thing in the universe.

Brandt isn't notable, by Wikip standards, because he spoke in public. He has been treated by many here as notable because he spoke about Wikipe in public. That's just not how those of us familiar with collaborative public investigations long before Wikip existed know him. NameBase and Wikipedia are both stops on a path that will eventually leave both in the dust. Wikip, the younger sibling, became more famous and decided it's more hard-working, astute and humble older sibling is notable, not even for being the older sibling of the great Wikipedia, but for being someone who spoke about Wikipe in public. In the end, it's a simple sibling rivalry, with a younger sibling using a more high-profile position to characterize an older and wiser sibling as incorrigible, when in fact, the older sibling has quite effectively demonstrated the incorrigibility of the younger sibling. This article belongs in the same place as that hateful letter you wrote about your big sister, based on her personal diary, after she took away your keys when you tried to drive home from the kegger party -- it belongs in the trash, along with many of your other misguided adolescent compositions.

Finally, regarding whether this deletion was in process or not, as my comments and others explain, there has been considerable doubt raised raised as to whether this article and the related quasi-legislative process that has maintained it were conducted in good faith. One aspect of growing up is admitting that you're not yet grown up. That's the thing that needs to happen here, and the tracks of these misguided adolescent steps need to be erased before they become a footpath, then a dirt road, then a major highway that serves as a model for yet more roads in the wrong direction. SanPadre 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) the preceding was the editor's first edit to Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

claims JoshuaZ, who fails to recognize that this might be the editor's first "registered" edit to Wikipedia, but that he knows nothing about this editor or this editor's history at Wikipedia or anywhere else.

Your long monologue about different types of "artists" and comparisons to "adolescent compositions" is fascinating, condescending and ultimately irrelevant. The claim that there has been a lack of good faith in keeping the Brandt article by "quasi-legislative" processes is both an explicit failure of WP:AGF and a tu quoque fallacy. Are you arguing that Brandt does not meet WP:BIO, in particular are you arguing that we do not have multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources about Brandt? If so, please explain what sources in the article are unsastifactory. If you think that we do have such sources, please explain why we shouldn't have an article about him. JoshuaZ 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am arguing that you do not have multiple, independent reputable good sources about Brandt's notable accomplishments. You have multiple independent reputable sources about those of Brandt's accomplishments that are not notable under WP:BIO -- specifically those sources about his "activism ... particularly in relation to Google Inc. and the Wikipedia encyclopedia project." He is not notable as an activist, nor for his activities in relation to Google or Wikipedia -- he is notable only as a researcher and computer programmer who provided techincal support via Namebase to activists, journalists, scholars, public officials and candidates for public office long before Wikip arrived on the scene. In my brief, fascinating (by your account), respectful and relevant contribution to this discussion, I argue that Brandt's noteworthy accomplishment -- by WP:BIO standards are not well-reported because his primary contribution -- NameBase -- is not widely referenced by those who use it in efforts to find other sources. In this regard, as explained in my careful exposition of the dynamics of sibling rivalry, Wikip editors have simply failed to find the rare sources that correctly attribute the role of NameBase in the development of public data sharing, and have failed to give those sources appropriate weight in the article, which would more appropriately be one about NameBase than about the individual who wrote and compiled the program. SanPadre 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you claim earlier that you have edited before. Given that, I presume you have some understanding of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I'd like you to explain how he is not notable for his activities in relation to google or Wikipedia- in particular, how [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Don't say otherwise, among other articles. The bottom line is that Brandt has been the subject of multiple reliable sources(and in fact not just multiple, but many) per the Wikipedia policy he is notable. JoshuaZ 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your reasoning, Josh. My familiarity with WP policies would not be based on the keystrokes I've submitted to Wikipedia as an editor, but instead on the extent to which I have read policies and guidelines. I've already explained how he is not notable for his passing commentaries on Google or Wikipedia. He maintains a Web page about Google -- that's just not notable unless Wikipedia plans to catalogue every blog on the Web. His activities about Wikipedia have been largely responsive to Wikipedias actions toward him -- that's not notable. The activities for which he is well-known account for only 60 of some 1500 words in the article, and none of those attribute his recognition to his recognizable accomplishment. Each of the three namebase references appear only in reference to other non-notable aspects of Brandt's private life. The rest of the article is mostly a rambling, irrelevant diatribe about how somebody crossed swords with Wikipedia, and an exagerated account of the relevance of a blog, salted with speculation about the motives of the person who authored the blog. SanPadre 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)