Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)

Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• This AfD remains open until March 12. Ashibaka (tock) Please note. This AfD#13 was initiated on March 2, 2007. The first five days of this ten day AfD takes into account the usual five day AfD period and the remaining five days takes into account any expectations that could be held by others that this AfD #13 would not start until one week after the February 28, 2007 close of the recent DRV. -- Jreferee 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please bear in mind that adding "strong keep" or "strong delete" will almost certainly not alter the weight given to your opinion by the closer. Please focus on arguments and discussions.JoshuaZ 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The recent DRV of this article was closed with the comment that an AfD would be opened in 1 week's time. I'm going ahead, being bold, and nominating this now. This is a procedural nomination based on the DRV outcome; I personally don't have an opinion either way at this time. All I will ask though as that everyone try and remain WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and that the AfD be allowed to run full course without any WP:SNOW, WP:IAR or other rationales for early closure.--Isotope23 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask why your request not to close this AfD prematurely should be respected, when you did not respect the request of the administrator who closed the Deletion review to wait a week before proceeding. It appears that you also did not consult that administrator or do him the courtesy of informing him that you were before overruling his decision. Furthermore, the immediate flood of discussion seems to me quite clearly a result of the fact that this AfD is a continuation of the edit war that was developing over the article itself after Zocky's intervention. Thus we are not in fact having the thoughtful, reasoned debate that was contemplated but are simply perpetuating the same passions as before. Under the circumstances, I find it difficult to see why this "process" should be considered any more legitimate than Yanksox's out-of-process deletion last week. --Michael Snow 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also request that this AfD not be closed until 5 days after it was scheduled to be opened, since many editors expected to have more time to improve the article or prepare their comments. Dhaluza 00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Many people will look for this during the announced scheduled time and be more than a little upset when it's prematurely closed. There's a difference between bold and recklessly indifferent. Derex 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing admin, please note this extension. Ashibaka (tock) 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, he did notify the admin who closed the DRV: [1]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. It should be added that Thebainer clearly objects to the action, having attempted to close it as premature, which was soon reversed by someone who is already vehemently arguing to keep. It is abundantly clear to me at this point that any result of this discussion cannot be considered legitimate, and the discussion should be started afresh, under calmer circumstances, at a later time. --Michael Snow 01:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take the DRV close statement by Thebainer (talk · contribs) as a request so much as a logical next step to his DRV close. Maybe I misinterpreted his statement; but I don't see this as "overruling him". I also don't see it as a continuation of the edit war because I wasn't in any way involved in that. Honestly, I don't think that if this had been AfD'd 5 days from now we'd be having any different discussion than we are having now. This article brings up many strong opinions and that would still be the case even if this was done in a few days; 5 days is not going to cool this one down. We are having as thoughtful and as reasoned of a debate as I could ever hope to see on this topic. As for comparing this to the deletion Yanksox (talk · contribs) enacted, sorry I don't see nominating an article for deletion a few days before it was possibly intended to be in quite the same light as the unilateral deletion of an article with no discussion per WP:IAR. If some admin is going to come along and WP:SNOW this as an out of process AfD, then they are going to do that. I'm not going to WP:WHEEL over this. I'd just hope that for the first time in quite a while we could have an actual AfD on this article that is seen through to its conclusion.--Isotope23 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin notes there was no consensus either way, consensus is not required to start an AfD and the word of a closing Admin (esp. when the are as compromised as Thebainer made himself by prejudging the outcome on wikipediareview.com) is not holy writ. Note that every vote here - keep or delete - is also an implcit concurrence with this AfD. Slimvirgin has already replaced the AfD banner on the article page after it was removed by Thebainer. David Spart 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing admin - If you previously closed one of the other Daniel Brandt AfDs, please do not close this Afd#13 per concerns on AfD#13 talk page. -- Jreferee 16:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 1

• Strong keep: The previous speedy deletion/DRV/RFaR mess was out of order as Daniel Brandt has clear notability. Below are news stories either about the subject Daniel Brandt or specifically citing him as a source in the piece (I checked each of these). The first section alone allows him to easily cruise past WP:BIO requirements. Based on his being notable I can't see any legitimate reason to delete at all. He's famous in his circles, and the entire world hears about him pracitically (note the international news coverage) often about privacy stuff. His private anti-wikipedian garbage is annoying from what I've read of it, but he's still notable. He is routinely cited by major news media (seen below) as authoratative source on a variety of privacy, search engine, Google, and internet privacy issues. By extension, if someone is so heavily gone-to as a voice and authority on a topic, by de facto he is notable because the media made him notable because of his own interaction with them. This seems to predate Siegenthaler, the Wikipedia feuds, etc., by some time. He exposed NSA/CIA spying on domestic citizens and got press for that (lots of press, world wide). More press still for his name base project. He got lots of lots of press and still does over his Google/SEO work (and still does, each month, as more media go to him). Unless Brandt completely stops talking to media forever this list will just grow each month, each year.

(Note: If I tagged a source as "Significant Brandt" it means he's mentioned in a solid number of paragraphs relative to length of article/source")

I found approximately 11 sources directly relevant/about Brandt, and another 41 sources that are either indirectly about him, or specifically cite him as a source of authority on privacy, Google, security, and an expert. I think by him getting used so much as a source he's notable in and of himself. Add in over 77 pages of Google hits (I gave up on counting sources at the 50 mark) Sources: (moved source list to Here on the talk page, please review there, at Isotope's request. Don't edit this; its part of my AfD statement!)

I think that's sufficient. People can find more by simple Googling - this search took me 77 pages in before I quit. In conclusion, Brandt is a clearly public person--or else why would he 1) be cited in dozens of news stories; 2) have MAJOR news organizations talking about him for years; 3) have Jimbo Wales "views Brandt as a notable public figure who just doesn't want to have his bio on Wikipedia"[2]. WP:BLP doesn't apply for privacy reasons. It applies to Brandt no more or less than it applies for Ben Affleck. Are 47-50+ sources enough to meet WP:BIO for inclusion? do we need the article? Do we need one on Jimmy Wales who is only notable for creating Wikipedia et al and only gets continued press for being the founder/manager of wikipedia (thats sort of one-note, but nothing wrong with that, he's a nice guy)? Do we need one for every two bit porn star/D-list celebrity, every episode of every tv show ever, every last movie ever, every pokemon character, every notable thing ever? isn't that the point? I can appreciate the guy not wanting an article for any reason... he doesn't like it, he thinks its unfair, he thinks it an invasion of his privacy by existing (the apparent reason as I read it...), or because he feels like it that day. But he made himself notable, wikipedia didn't make him notable. He got more notable the more he fought, and the more attention he brought on himself by railing on and on. any circular increase in notability/notoriety he got, that I can tell from reading (good God, too many of these) articles and Wikipedia history is his own doing. he keeps at the media, he keeps at Wikipedia, not the other way around. we just documented it all it looks like, and he kept it up. chicken or the egg? Anyway, Wikipedia is supposed to be the Sum total of human knowledge...

So, strong keep. 1) For the simple fact he passes WP:BIO easily; 2) IARing to delete sets a horrible precedent. Anyone then who makes themselves famous, infamous, or notable by complaining loudest will get their way and have precedent from my understanding; 3) unless Brandt stops all his public activities (which is what they are) his notability each month/year will just grow, each time he does something or contributes as a recognized source. This list will just grow. 4) per #3, note he passes even the most stringent WP:BIO test but will only do so with ever-increasing ease over time. Therefore Strong Keep. - Denny 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a technical note, would you mind refactoring that huge source list to the Afd talkpage and linking it in your opinion... I imagine this debate will be huge as is.--Isotope23 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, gimme a sec... - Denny 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Isotope23 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my list again, it's been modified/trimmed slightly now, for 10 primary sources & 37 supporting, instead of the 11 & 41 previously, for a total of 47 instead of 52. My apologies, I had a couple of duplicates... - Denny 06:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, strong keep. The subject meets WP:BIO as a subject of multiple non-trivial works independent of Brandt. Meets WP:N, too, if that's your flavor. The article meets our standards for reliable sourcing and verifiability, and is not a WP:BLP issue. There is no reason whatsoever to delete this article - just because we (being Wikipedia) don't like him and he doesn't like us is no reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per Jeff, SqueakBox 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC) and with the commitment that as long as I keep a functioning watchlist I'll watch this article for vandalism and other BLP violations, SqueakBox 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Stubify, protect and move content around Looking at the most recent turn of the "biography," there are a number of major sections.

• The first regards Brandt's time as a vietnam protestor. He was not a notable vietnam protestor. The sources regarding his protests range from "weak (student newspaper)" to "his name is used.(NYTimes)." Nothing is added to our article by including this, and we have regularly had "unverifiable" (aka "totally false made up shit") inserted into this section.
• The second part of his work is "Networking with other activists." This, again, has sources ranging from "absolute crap" (NameBase NewsLine, picked up by another source) and "Unreliable blog" (Counterpunch).
• The section on "Deep Indexing" should be moved to an article about Micro Associates or Namebase.org, or deleted as totally irrelevent.
• The "Split within the PIR" section shoud be moved to the article on Public Information Research
• Online Activism is already covered by the article on Google Watch.
• Criticism of Wikipedia is a section that is better put in our article about Criticism of Wikipedia or Wikipedia Watch.
• Seigenthaler Wikipedia biography controversy is already covered in our article about the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The article should remain as a sub, much like the one here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep No-brainer per Denny. There's really little I can say to add to it besides to mention that Brandt is already convinced we are evil so it doesn't matter at all what we do - we are and always will be a target of his. Which isn't *that* bad a thing, as long as he remains honest, because it means he'll find stuff like the plagiarism and the Essjay thing which, however painful it turns out and however much better it could've been handled inside the community, sooner or later needed to be fixed. --Gwern (contribs) 18:58 2 March 2007 (GMT) 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per just the first half of Denny's ungodly huge list of sources. Wow. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep but take extreme care to make sure it meets WP policy (really we should with all BLP's and all articles, but whatever). Notable and sourced, I don't think there's any question it's a keep, and most deletion arguments seem to ignore policy and be based on trying to make a "problem" go away. The article should stay, but it should be limited to information that is encyclopedic and relevant to the reasons he is notable. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Stubbify / make a dab page, as suggested by User:Zocky in this version: [3]. That way the article links to everything he is notable for and there are no longer any BLP objections. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, huge list of available sources shows that he meets WP:BIO. If the rest of the media is comfortable writing about him, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't. (Hey, as of this writing, lots of keeps and no deletes! Please resist temptation to apply WP:SNOW) - Ehheh 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Mainstream media coverage + reliable sources = keep if any reasonable people want it. Reasonable people want this article. Keep the article. The lines of reasoning that we should dump this article because the subject doesn't want it, or because the subject makes trouble for WP, are patently ridiculous. Vadder 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It would be easy to say "13th nomination" - 'nuff said but the is much more to be said. The subject is not borderline notable, he is very very notable. He was notable in August '05 and he is much more notable now. The article is high quality and well sourced. Privacy is a red herring since all the information is public domain. Remember: Brandt's complaint about the article is not that it is biased to libelous - he has two problems with it (a) "Google loves Wikipedia" so it comes up first when you search for his name, and (b) he is concerned about defamatory information being added. Even Brandt has no complains about the article itself. David Spart 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep badlydrawnjeff summarizes my reasoning above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Isotope23, Badlydrawnjeff, Nilo, Gwern and Denny. JoshuaZ 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isotope started this as a procedural matter, but as he says above, he hasn't taken a stand either way - probably doesn't make sense to use him as a "per". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, slight brain fart there. JoshuaZ 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for all the reasons already stated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Umm... by my count, you're the first Delete vote here, so I'm not sure what reasons you're referring to. Maybe you should state them? --Maelwys 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Darn, edit conflict, I wanted to say that. I can't wait for the people arguing delete per SlimVirgin... :-)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Presumably, everywhere else this article has been discussed? Proto ► 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And that's exactly the problem. It has been discussed everywhere in great volume. I'm coming to this with an open mind, but not so open I'm going to read everything ever written on the topic of Brandt's article. I'm sure there are great arguments for deletion, so I'd appeal to people who hold that opinion to make a clear and detailed case here. Thanks, William Pietri 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, a clear and detailed, albeit repetitive, case. (1) He is of very marginal notability. It may not appear that way to us, because we talk about him a lot, but that's an internal Wikipedia thing. Outside in the real world, he's not known, and he's not a public figure, though he wants to be, in my view. When the New York Times mentioned him in relation to the Siegenthaler affair, they said "Daniel Brandt, 57, of San Antonio, who makes his living as a book indexer," then mentioned that he'd set up a website. This is how newspapers refer to people they regard as private figures. They didn't say: "Daniel Brandt, the Wikipedia privacy activist." (2) Because of the fuss surrounding it, the article has attracted a lot of excited editing, and a "publish and be damned" attitude. This has led to a degree of immature and unprofessional editing, with scant regard for our editing policies, and I don't see that changing any time soon. (3) The article has caused a lot of trouble, and it isn't worth it. We're an encyclopedia project; we're not here to prove that we can't be "bullied." Ignore the bullying, the apparent blackmail attempts, and the whole hive mind thing, and concentrate on whether it benefits Wikipedia to have this article. It clearly doesn't. (4) The subject says he wants it to be deleted. I don't believe he does, because when he first requested deletion in or around October 2005, I deleted it, and it would have stayed that way if he hadn't started posting about it on various blogs, causing one of the bloggers to recreate it. But regardless, he says he wants it deleted, and I believe that bios of borderline notable living persons should be deleted on request. I hope this is a clear and detailed enough case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • applause Nicely argued, Ms Virgin. Grace Note 09:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, reasons as per badlydrawnjeff above. This AfD nomination is particularly poor since the nominator doesn't care "either way" and offered no reasons why the article should be deleted. That this article is up for AfD is absurd, and shows a major way Wikipedia fails -- that should be what is worked on. -R. S. Shaw 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Funny, I never said I "didn't care either way", I actually said I don't have an opinion either way at this time. Please refer back to the recent DRV, my nomination (i.e. "procedural"), and GRBerry's comment below for the reason this is currently at AfD.--Isotope23 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep bravo to R. S. Shaw, it goes without saying that this article needs to be kept and the policies that lead to this endless wheel-warring examined and improved. juicifer 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The last full and complete AFD on this article was in November 2005, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt 2. We got from 2 to 13 with a pair of snowball keeps, a pair of invalid during DRV keeps, and 6 speedy keeps (mostly due to nomination by a banned user). See the list on the article's talk page for complete links. GRBerry 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, Brandt is notable in his field, yes. However, his field is not staggeringly newsworthy or of high impact on the world in general. He has requested on numerous occasions that this article be removed. Why are we so desperate to have an article on him? Will Wikipedia collapse without one article on an internet activist? Are we so rabidly inclusionist that kindness and being "for the reader, not just the editor", go out of the window? Rhetorical questions, please do not answer. I honestly don't see why we have to have an article if the subject of that article has asked us not to. It is far, far more relevant to the subject than to any of us, individually or collectively. The argument that "Yes, but the newspaper mentions him!" - hey! Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If any print encyclopaedia had a polite request from someone who has a small mention and who is unrelated to anything major, they would remove the article, the world would not collapse, life would go on. Why is this such an emotive, hysterically overwrought and dramatic topic? Why is our policy more important than the subject's own feelings? If you consider it is, then you are a retard and I wish to never talk to you. Brandt's not trying to subvert the article for a puff piece, he isn't trying to abuse his article in a big conflict of interest. He just, very civilly, asked for the article to be removed, and Wikipedians, being the children we mostly are, said "yah boo it is VERIFIABLE so we will keep it". Delete it, let the man have his privacy, and go make Wikipedia a better place. I wish we could move on from this, I really do. Sometimes, I understand why he is trying to get his own back, I really do. Blurgh. Proto ► 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Cease with the personal attacks, Proto. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • So, for the record, you have no argument based in our policies or guidelines that this should be deleted, simply that we should ignore them and delete it regardless? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The big question I have is, if the main reason for deletion is that the subject doesn't want it, do we apply that to every article in WP? What if George W. Bush asks for his article to be deleted? Seems like a proxy WP:IDONTLIKEIT on behalf of the subject of the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Note where I say Brandt is borderline notable. There is obviously notable, there is obviously unnotable, and there is a grey area inbetween, where Brandt falls. Label it with any WP:-shortcutted essay you like. If you must have a policy, WP:BLP#Non-public figures: In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Proto ► 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • How many sources does it take for someone to be notable? - Denny 20:21, 2 March 2007
          • • Seventeen million. Proto ► 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (SPick a number, Mentions do not equal notability; this is a fallacy. I picked a random number as it doesn't matter how many there are. Lots of mentions in articles mainly about other things is not a requisite of notability. But I am not saying he is unnotable. I am saying that this is not the only thing that matters. The fact that so many Wikipedians believe otherwise is disconcerting, to say the least.
              • But WP:BIO does decide what is notable... he is, based on the sources. thats why I don't understand how multiple non-trivial sources would mean he's not notable. Did you see my sources section? What did you think of that...? - Denny 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
                • WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy, as is its parent guideline, WP:N. We must always try and stick to the guidelines, but they can be subverted or ignored when common sense, kindness or policy suggests. Proto ► 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The section on non-public figures says "include only information relevant to their notability", not deletion. I'm not sure how you consider that section justification for deletion. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to butt in, but - yes. In the case of semi-notable people (pleaseohgodPLEASEdon'ttellmeheisnotableiknowmyopinion'snotpopularbutit's theoneihaveandi'mstickingtoitandidon'twanttobeinvolvedinafight) the wishes of an article's subject should trump all Wikipedia rules. You can't really expect someone who doesn't want an article here in the first place to give a crap about our procedures. Indiawilliams 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. He doesn't want this article. To me at least, that's reason enough. Indiawilliams 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would that logic apply to George W. Bush, or Tony Blair or Ralph Nader? JoshuaZ 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, because that's exactly how notable Daniel Brandt is. That really is the most accurate comparison you could have made. Proto ► 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, so then what about James Randi? JoshuaZ 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As I typed before... pleaseohgodPLEASEdon'ttellmeheisnotableiknowmyopinion'snotpopularbutit's theoneihaveandi'mstickingtoitandidon'twanttobeinvolvedinafight Indiawilliams 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You didn't say that your opinion is that he does not meet our notability requirements, you said, "he doesn't want this article," and, "that's reason enough." They're two entirely different concepts; one is rooted in policy, the other is rooted in nothing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You could say that ultimately my opinion on this is indeed based on nothing, or at least my own selfish sense of honor. But the reason I think it would be alright if the deletion was carried out is because of his semi-notability. Indiawilliams 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • • So what is semi-notable? 3 sources? 5 sources? 10 sources? 100 sources? 10^6 sources? JoshuaZ 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
            • It isn't a numbers game. Proto ► 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Then what is it? How do we make the determination? JoshuaZ 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
            • This is subjective as hell, but simply put, who cares about this guy? He's not on TV, he's not in magazines or regularly in the newspaper. He has not had an iota of an impact on society one way or another, positively or negatively, publically or privately. Deleting his article from the Wikipedia space is like deleting some random Digimon article; no one in the outside world cared about the issue in the first place and they won't care now that they'll never see it. Indiawilliams 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the official policy on people requesting their own articles go away...? - Denny 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Under WP:BLP, a person can contact the foundation if they have concerns about a biographical article. As far as I know that would be the closest thing to what you are asking. I think it is safe to say the foundation is leaving this one up to the community at large.--Isotope23 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. He's only marginally notable at best, and then only because he's been an effective self-publicist through attacking high-profile Internet sites such as Google and Wikipedia. His general obnoxiousness shouldn't be taken as a reason to spite him by voting to keep this article. -- ChrisO 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't spite to observe that he satisfies WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. How many sources? Abeg92contribs 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• 52 before I gave up... - Denny 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Be an encyclopedia and delete this is long overdue. We are supposed to be a serious encyclopedia and we need to rise above 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 real-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 let's go back to creating great articles in all the meaningful areas where we are full of shit. We need more philosophers that are inspired by what a great encyclopedia is, and a ban on myopic lawyers that are more concerned with rules, counting sources, and worrying about whether this whether we'd have to delete George W. Bush if he asked nicely. Please! Stop the in-house rules, the process wonking, and the idea that we're at war with some non-notable nonentity like Brandt, and think what a great encyclopedia, which benefits humanity, looks like. Because it sure as hell does not look like this. Kill this off, and end this madness now.--Doc^g 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. Proto ► 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Let's say Brandt's article is deleted (13th time's the charm if you take that one off the front, I guess). A few months down the line, someone notices that there's no article for this guy even though he's mentioned in this article and that article so they google him. They see that they get a pretty good number of hits so they consolidate all the information that's already elsewhere on Wikipedia, slap a few sources on the page, and call it a night. A few hours later, someone notices that Brandt has an article and nominates it for deletion. The author/compiler of the article comes back and uses guidelines and policy to back up the article they worked on the day before. Are they a myopic lawyer or an inspired philosopher? --Dookama 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you think (as the few people who want to delete seem to) that people should be able to delete their own articles if they are not very very famous then here is not the place to do it. Intelectual honestly (and intelect) requires that you first change wikipedia policy and then vote to delete this article based on the new policy. People that say "nobable but...delete" are contradicting themselves. David Spart 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'Intellectual honesty'?? WTF? We're making an ncyclopedia, not crafting a bill of rights.--Doc^g 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you please be civil User:Doc glasgow. Your comments is absurd and I think that it rather makes my point. David Spart 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just to clarify... "Notability" is not policy, it is a guideline. Just because something is "notable" does not mean we have to have an article about it (and the reverse is true as well; we don't absolutely have to delete an article because it falls short of WP:N).--Isotope23 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not reading a word of this nomination. I've already made up my mind. Plenty of sources, every policy/guideline met. The English Wikipedia should have this article until the end of time. --- RockMFR 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A closed mind, not willing to listen to the debate? I'm glad your contribution won't count then.--Doc^g 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and controll your commnets. David Spart 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly calm, this is a debate where we listen to one another. Someone who chooses not to listen is not entering into it. His choice.--Doc^g 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL --- RockMFR 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR is entitled to his opinion. Whether or not he cares to read the nomination is beside the point; he made his argument why he is opining keep.--Isotope23 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I urge that this article be deleted simply because it is disruptive to the project. We don't need to have it, and it has directly and indirectly caused grief to many editors. Perhaps WP:DENY can be invoked, or even WP:IAR. The end effect is that having this article does not, on the whole, help this project. -Will Beback · † · 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep From what I can tell the arguments for deletion are: He doesn't want it. Although I feel for subjects in this position, I think it has to be irrelevant to Wikipedia. He (or his field) are not sufficiently notable. This is reasonable, but I think notability is more cause for inclusion than exclusion. Plus, he has been noted, which I take as a good proxy for notable. He deserves his privacy. That would work for me for a private citizen, but Brandt is an intentionally public figure. We're only doing this out of spite. I don't have anything against him, so that's not my motivation. There is another page with this information. That's great, but I don't see that as a reason to delete this. This article is too much trouble. I think that would be a terrible precedent, and would mean we could be harrassed into deleting things that we otherwise would keep. On the keep side, it seems like we have plenty of material and that the article meets core policies like WP:ATT and WP:BLP. Further, it fits my personal criterion of utility: people may see his name somewhere and say, "Who is this Brandt guy the paper is quoting?" And anytime people have a reasonable question, I think we should have an easy-to-find factual answer for them. So for now, I'm going with keep. William Pietri 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do subjects' wishes have to be irrelevant? Indiawilliams 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the biggest reason is that deleting material based on personal preference inevitably skews our contents. We have a responsibility to our readers to be a neutral repository of factual information. Per WP:ATT, we don't include anything that people can't find out elsewhere, so we're not exposing anything that isn't already public. I agree absolutely that we should respect our subjects, and that we should edit with compassion and taste. I think WP:BLP is a good example of that. But that's different than respecting their wishes. William Pietri 23:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I found your arguments very convincing, thanks William for sharing them. Cartwarmark 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for replying to myself, but apparently my reply to the "too much trouble" argument wasn't explicit enough. First, I feel like having a precedent like this would be terrible, as I expect a lot of articles could be considered too much trouble. Second, having that precedent gives people incentive to create trouble around articles they would like removed. Third, deleting things we would otherwise keep increases systemic bias, this time in the case of favoring non-controversial material. Thanks for reading, William Pietri 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article has a large number of references with substantial coverage about the individual's activities and accomplishments from reliable sources. These would clearly be adequate or anyone else who has not had controversies with Wikipedia, so they are adequate in this case as well. Edison 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If being featured in as many news stories as he has doesn't make him notable, I have no clue what does. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

• Keep This article is about a notable person and is well sourced. It was notable in 2005, 2006 and is also relevant taday. Callum Derbyshire 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The man doesn't want it, and it has caused more trouble than it's worth. ElinorD (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the man doesn't want it is not an argument for deletion. The questions we have to ask are:

1. is the article about a notable subject/person?
2. is the content of the article true ?
3. do we have sources proving it is true ?

if all answers are yes there is no reason for deletion (period). Alf^Photoman 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: When I wrote "the man doesn't want it", I did not mean that articles about Pope Benedict, Tony Blair, and George W. Bush should be taken down if the subject of the article indicated a desire that we should do so. I believe that with living people who are definitely notable, to the extent that it would seem odd for an encyclopaedia not to have an article on them {Michael Jackson comes to mind), we should keep such articles, regardless of the wishes of their subjects, but we should scrupulously ensure that they stay in line with WP:BLP. For people who are so non-notable that an article about them would make the encyclopaedia lose credibility (me, for example!) we should not have articles, even if the subject wishes for one (I don't!). However, for people who are not so notable that the lack of an article would make Wikipedia lose credibility (such as Daniel Brandt), if such people indicate that they do not wish for an article, their wishes should certainly not be regarded as completely irrelevant. ElinorD (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and make it a featured article. The Boy that time forgot 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?, remember AFD is not a vote, rather it's a discussion WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for keeping. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this ridiculous navel-gazing. Brandt may well be well known in his field, but his field is tiny. Wikipedia / Google Watch is a notable enterprise, Brandt is not a notable individual. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Other than the other arguments for keep, if Wikipedia / Google Watch are notable then I would like to know who is behind the enterprises and what agenda they are pushing. - Ctbolt 05:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that this article is repeatedly kept shows that there's very little reliance on common sense. The existence of guidelines to guide is reasonable, yes, but, there are a few points which need to be made: 1) Wikipedia is not that important to the real world. It does meet our notability guidelines etc, but that doesn't mean it's actually a large facet of the world, nor does it make all things connected to it of vast importance. 2) Based on 1, this man's Wikipedia activism is really not that important either. Yes, it meets our notability guidelines combined with his other minor activism, but he is one of many to do similar things. At best, he is of borderline notability/importance. Very few non-Wikipedia editors will want to know about him. 3) Based on 1 and 2, if his actual relevance is questionable (and it really is in the real world), then I think we should respect requests to have articles removed. We've done it before. It's not some sort of submission to bullying, it's a matter of being decent. Nothing tragic will occur if we lose this article. The fact that Wikipedia has failed to do what it should have done a long time ago does not mean it cannot rectify its mistakes. 4) Besides all of the other things, this article causes strife within the community, and will continue to do so while Brandt remains alive. It's really quite silly to keep it around when he doesn't want it, it's not helping us, and it's really not helping that many in our readership. GassyGuy 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Easily passes our very stringent inclusion guidelines of WP:BIO. As for the multiple delete arguments minimizing the importance of WP:BIO, I'll say what I said in the Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) AfD; Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article that's not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (and believe me, some of the deletionists will pounce, and hard), I'm going to point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of those guidelines. --Oakshade 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

if you need some more examples let me know... Alf^Photoman 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. 13 AfD nominations? Come on people... if it's not gone by now, it's here to stay. Notability is clearly asserted, and any further attempts to get it deleted are an attempt to circumvent policy. – Lantoka (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them was speedy kept as bad faith noms though, only like one or two wasn't closed early. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although the person in question doesn't want the article on Wikipedia, that isn't a valid excuse for deletion. The person has not met the deletion criteria, as Photoman pointed out. Therefore there's no reason for this article to be deleted, although semi protection might be required to cope with the amount of vandalism --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not a borderline case; countless reliable sources have been cited.--Eloquence* 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete -- on condition that he takes down his pages of Wikipedians' personal info. SakotGrimshine 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

hey you are not suggesting we make politician's deals are you ? Alf^Photoman 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with this more strongly. Our articles aren't bargaining chips in anything, anywhere. We write for our readers, and the articles should serve them and them alone. William Pietri 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen Alf^Photoman 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:BIO. --ElKevbo 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes even the most stringent readings of WP:BIO. I do sympathize with calls for reforming WP:BIO to take to account courtesy deletions of borderline-notable people, but that proposal was shot down. Unless consensus develops to change WP:BIO, this article is a clear keeper. Plus, internet privacy as a problem isn't going to go away any time soon, and Brandt, as a leading expert in this field will in fact get more notable as time goes on. Borisblue 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. If someone asks to be removed, that is a factor in favor of deletion, but this guy is too notable for that. If you want to play a numbers game, just multiply the size of this AfD page by the number in the page title. Raw numbers don't indicate notability, but they do suggest it, and those numbers are huge. The numbers of web hits are huge also. If you want to delete someone for non-notability, why is there still an article about Jimbo Wales? He's a complete unknown outside of Wikipedia. But the standard isn't notability, but notability among Wikipedia editors, so ascertainment bias is inflating Jimbo's notability. As noted above, Brandt is concerned about what his page says now, he's concerned about what it might say in the future. His concern is that he might be the next John Seigenthaler. That's a legitimate concern, and the crux of his argument against Wikipedia. Still, that's generic issue with BLPs (and one Wikipedia still needs to address), not a reason to delete any specific article. — Randall Bart 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I could not possibly agree with Doc G more. Brandt is notable only in context and we have articles that can include that context. This has been completely unnecessary and an incredibly silly place for us to dig our feet in. There is nothing about the article or its references that leads me to believe that any encyclopedia needs this article. While there are good reasons for the notability guidelines to exist, they certainly shouldn't be the only consideration or even the main discussion here. Shell ^babelfish 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Barticus Hojimachong^talk 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain I would make that observation that being unsubtle in your POINTedness frequently leads to the opposite result. If I thought Brandt were more clever, I would think he wanted this article to remain. But he's apparently not, so I don't. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have an opinion on the article, and honestly, I don't give a damn. To be perfectly honest, I've only read bits and pieces of this discussion, and I have no intention of reading further. But i must ask: If there's consensus one way or the other, can we please just leave it at that?! It looks like there are considerably more keep !votes than delete !votes, so if this is kept, can it just be kept? And if the consensus (somehow) clearly points toward deletion, can it just be deleted? I'm sure that, no matter what the outcome, someone is already setting up the DRV page, and that's stupid. It's foolish to waste so much time and effort on one person who is only marginally notable (note that I'm not saying whether or not "marginally notable" is also "sufficiently notable"). Everyone's so up in arms about one article that isn't all that important, and it would be far better if we just laid this to rest after this AfD. While I know that almost certainly will not happen, I'm still going to make a plea for it to be so. Just get on with your (real or WP or both) lives, everyone! -- Kicking222 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Abstain This article deserves a spot. - User:Patricknoddy/sig 22:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, AFD is not a vote. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regretful Keep. As per everybody above, on both sides. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Absolutely passes both Notability and Verifiability. No BLP problems in the article (and no, the subject saying "I don't care if it's true, I don't want an article about me" doesn't create a BLP issue). SirFozzie 23:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Daniel Brandt recently said at Wikipedia Review that the main reason he doesn't want a biography of him on Wikipedia is that we are incompetant to create one. Which due to our rule against Original Research is true. All our rules let us create on an article about a semi-public living person is a few noteable claims from reliable published sources and a few uncontroversial non-noteable published claims to try to round it out. I recommend such articles contain a disclaimer indicating they are not biographies. There is further discussion of this on the article's talk page. Or was, until it was archived to make room for the lasted back and forth that occurred there. WAS 4.250 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• ... the reason he doesn't want a biography ... is that we are incompetant to create one -- also not so good at spelling. -- EMET-MET 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What does spelling have to do with deleting or not deleting his article??? Indiawilliams 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The irony, here is a barely notable activist who criticizes Google and Wikipedia on privacy issues, and we pay him back by giving him a full fledged article on his life. Payback meaning: So you like privacy eh? Here’s an article about you. And it stays! Welcome to the world wide web! Really people, as a true encyclopedia, shouldn’t we handle this professionally? Or are we a social club who reacts to criticism when we are called on the obvious problems we have? And our response: We band together to chastise someone in society that was questioning our (among others on the web) accountability and we say he gets an article. If he does not want an article, and he’s barely notable, why do we not respect his wish? Interesting proposition, if you want an article about your life in WIKI, do nothing but start off slow, say some things about search engines, start Google Watch knowing that since it is on the web, Google will pick it up. Then criticize Wikipedia enough to get your name in some media, and we will write an article about you and "honor your wish". Was this what he wanted? Who knows? If his article is kept when the dust settles from this AfD, I hope he writes a book about the whole thing. That way, he will get the last laugh… $$$. Why didn’t I think of that! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

but that is precisely the point, it does not matter what he wants ... if we start going by what people want instead of by what editors decide by consensus we end up being a notice board instead of a encyclopedia. This is not about Brandt (hey, had no idea who he pretends to be until tonight), this is about principles Alf^Photoman 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But it does matter that he is barely, barely notable, and to keep this article, especially by hiding behind the # of media references, violates common sense that Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. The strong views to keep simply reflect the extraordinary bias of many WP contributors (young, male, computer (over)literate, American) who conflate their own interests with larger notability guidelines. Get over it and Delete forthwith. Eusebeus 16:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per above, this person is more notable than many of our Pokemon, pornstars, and other marginal BLP subjects, and I see no reason based on current policy to exclude him. His own opinion about the article's status is not pertinent to the AFD discussion, IMO. Crum375 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. Now take two steps back, and think about the larger purpose (improving the world's access to knowledge) that supposedly informs the policy pages and internal concerns you're talking about; do the gains we make in that regard by keeping this outweigh the potential harms of keeping biographical articles on minor figures who don't want them? --Robth^Talk 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Harms? could you elaborate? I don't see anything harmful in having someones article despite his/her wishes. Alf^Photoman 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, what are the 'potential harms'? And I am not at all convinced he doesn't want an article; he kept talking about it after it was originally deleted, and this caused its recreation. And our goal is to present all notable well sourced information. Once we start allowing exclusions, it's a slippery slope, and we'll spend countless hours arguing about whether each BLP subject is 'notable' or 'marginally notable'. Crum375 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe we should delete articles about Pokemon, pornstars, and other marginal BLP subjects, rather than keeping other unencyclopedic articles. --BigDT 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. He qualifies, it's not libellous, and the obsessions of its subject don't enter into it. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Now that we're doing this the correct way... this guy is only borderline notable. I feel the majority of keep voters aren't seeing the full picture here, and instead are trying to keep the fuel in the fire. Please, let's stop being paranoid about this, people. Look at the sources, ask yourself if this guy's really notable, and if he deserves to continue to be put through this. Please don't troll just because you want to make it on hivemind. —Pilotguy go around 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can make it on the hivemind page by !voting keep?!? YES! My dream has come true! --- RockMFR 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I apparently just got added, I think that was due to my actions here(although I've blocked and reverted Brandt a few times before which might have something to do with it). JoshuaZ 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 3

• Keep. Easily passes all WP:BIO and WP:ATT criteria. Brandt is clearly a public figure by any legal definition. This specific case is important because it brings several antithetical philosophies into conflict:

• Inclusion vs. Deletion
• Policy vs. Ignore All Rules
• Consensus vs. Fiat
• Public interest vs. Subject’s wishes

Those arguing to delete are willing to throw consensus-based policy out the window for the sake of expediency: :It’s “disruptive,” he doesn’t want it, etc. However, many Wikipedia policies make a lot of work, from allowing anonymous edits to requiring consensus. I believe controversies like this ultimately make for a better encyclopedia, because they test philosophical positions with real-world examples. They gauge community consensus. They allow opposing points of view to have a civil discussion that sets our long-term course. I believe the manner in which Wikipedia handles biographies of critics and controversial people (or in this case, both) should represent our best work. Any living biography subject should be able to look at their article and say, yes, that’s all true. In this case, it’s all true, it’s well-sourced, and it’s a fair summary of his work. So, do we ignore all rules and delete by fiat according to the subject’s wishes, or do we include a public figure based on consensus-based policy? It appears most people feel the latter is the better course of action, and we should abide by that. Jokestress 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Excellent points--you get my vote for most cogent argument so far. Thanks for the food for thought! Dhaluza 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. For this particular case, Wikipedia has long since proven itself insufficiently mature to handle having this. In general, delete all bios of borderline notable people if the subject requests it. I signed on here to try and make the world a better place, not to watch us cling to our internal policies without consideration of the larger effects of our actions. --Robth^Talk 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia, per the BLP concerns. I think he's borderline notable as it is, he could be a section in another article rather than an article in itself. Just H^{editor review} 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Note to closer - Just H struck out this post and posted his reasonings below. -- Jreferee 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC))
• Keep We all know this meets the applicable policies - if you ask me this is really here for political reasons. I see no reason for deletion other than the subject's objection to it (which isn't even a reason). So, keep. Glen 00:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or 'Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia. Not notable enough for his own article. A smattering of passing references in the occasional news outlet - most of which refer to this encyclopedia - does not guarantee that we need a whole article on this subject. Someone above wrote "controversies like this ultimately make for a better encyclopedia" - I very much doubt that any professional encyclopedist or archivist would view this episode as anything other than an embarrassing and shameful debacle. And one that has reeked of petty mindedness. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Mr Brandt, as oppose to Mr Roberts, has been around for a long time, and has clearly become a notable personage in and of himself. This probably suffers from recentism, though, but since we all have a WP:COI here, I think we should err on the side of inclusion. --Haemo 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; WP:BLP plus borderline notability issues plus subject's own wishes plus the whole sorry mess this article has caused – Qxz 00:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per badlydrawnjeff. --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Marginally notable at best and doesn't want an article. Wikipedia should just do the Right Thing and respect the wishes of living persons when notability is in question in the first place. This is childish and has gone on far too long. Dragomiloff 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per SlimVirgin! --Kevin Murray 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to mention some compelling arguments too numerous to cite. --Kevin Murray 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, SV argued for deletion. JoshuaZ 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I realized that, but I found the reference he/she made to the arguments above his/hers (all Keeps) a compelling reason to KEEP. Perhaps some poor humor, but this is a farce anyway. Really, 13 AfD's -- this is now beyond silly. --Kevin Murray 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep this one is not so complicated. The subject has voluntarily stepped from obscurity into the public eye. He may not be a household name, but is well known in his field and has some notable achievements. So arguments about non-notability are subjective at best. I started the process of going through the list of references pending inclusion, checking them, and expanding the article. I thought I would have this weekend to continue this process, but it was cut short by the early nomination (which I protested above). Even if we delete this version of the article, there is nothing to stop anyone from re-creating it since it meets all policy requirements, so this is a dead end. Protecting against re-creation would be an extreme step and set a bad precedent (especially after the article survived multiple previous AfD). So delete is a non-starter. As far as splitting the content, that is a valid editorial consideration, but should be made based on the content not the subject. Even if the information about his various projects are split to separate articles, the main article on the subject needs to stay wiki-linked for context. The alternative is the opposite of WP:BTW. I do believe the wishes of the subject can be considered in cases of marginal notability, but this is not such a case. Dhaluza 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain. As Michael Snow said, this discussion is premature. The intention of waiting a week was to give time for everyone, involved or not, to calm down and thing throughly about the issue. This has obviously not happened. --cesarb 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Actually the point of waiting a week was to give the closing admin User:Thebainer the best chance of subverting process to get his own way. While I know the the original speedy deletion mess was orchestrated by Brandt and a number of sympathetic admin operating out of an IRC channel, I was shocked to find out the while Thebiner presented himself as neutral in his closing remarks he had in fact been conspiring on the wikipediareview.com message boards - along with Daniel Brandt himself - to get the article deleted in the most expeditious way possible. The sordid discussion can be viewed here (well done to User:DennyColt for finding it.) When this was publicized, User:Hipocrite angrily revealed himself to have been in on the scam too. Thebainer prejudices the future AfD (which he says that he will close as well as the DRV), declaring his intent to delete even in the face of a contrary consensus, boasting "I seem to do fairly well at closing otherwise controversial debates and making the result stick." Thebainer must not be involved in this process anymore and IMHO should be desysoped. David Spart 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Um, actually if one continues to read the thread, one sees that that Thebainer is not conspiring as described at all, rather expressing his/her opinion on what would happen in the AfD IF the results from the RVC (sp?; whatever the last procedural moiety was called) were extrapolated to the AfD. That may be right, or wrong. Thebainor also expressed an opinion of the article which is not entirely consistent with delete. Disclaimer: I am interested in this incident not at all for the merits of the case itself (thus will not vote) but rather for the Godelian nature of all of the discussion itself: all discussion here impacts the merit of their arguments made themselves. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per the very well-thought-out discussion that has already taken place. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but speedy close this AFD. It strikes me as process gaming. Anyone who paid attention to the DRV isn't expecting an AFD to come out for a week so raising this AFD early is potentially cutting off many users who have strong views about the issue. It's kinda funny that an IAR nomination asks that we not IAR and close the nomination early. We should close this nomination and address this issue after the arbcom case is closed and the dust is settled. --BigDT 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I never invoked WP:IAR in my nomination... I'm not sure what "rules" I'd be ignoring. If this gets closed early so be it, but we will just be rehashing the exact same arguments 5 days from now.--Isotope23 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The DRV determination was that this AFD should be held a week later. You ignored that determination. The difference between now and then is that a week would give everyone's emotions some time to settle and the arbcom case would be over. Introducing this on a Friday night sooner than anyone was expecting it while half of Wikipedia is too busy crucifying EssJay to care about it all assures that participation will be low. People actually visiting the article and thus noticing the AFD tag (more likely to want to see it kept) will be showing up in greater percentages than if the AFD were to be held at the previously announced time. --BigDT 03:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is rubbish, and the closure of the DRV is looking increasing compromised and the closer himself has a lot to answer for. This is not a conspiracy, assume good faith, and read the discussions from this morning surrounding Zocky's failed compromise. And what differnence does it make - the thing stays open for five days anyway, plenty of time for the troops to be called in on the IRC. David Spart 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's funny that you accuse me of not assuming good faith when you yourself are assuming bad faith on brainer's part. Though I disagree with the result of his closure (the thing really needs to go), he unquestionably did what was probably the least disagreeable action that took into account everyone's concerns. As for wikipediareview, it's disturbing that any Wikipedia admin would have an account there, but nothing he said in the thread you linked above was particularly shocking. As for this staying open five days, barring a huge revelation (like someone actually googling and finding a source), nothing ever changes after day 1 of an AFD. As far as assume good faith ... I fully assume that Isotope23 is acting in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest. But that doesn't require me to agree with his conclusion. --BigDT 03:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • "Introducing this on a Friday night sooner than anyone was expecting it while half of Wikipedia is too busy crucifying EssJay to care about it all assures that participation will be low" - that is assuming bad faith. And I don't need to assume bad faith on Thebainer's part - his bad faith is clear for all to see. Prejudicing a DRV and AfD which he intends to close himself. David Spart 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And it is laughable to suggest that this isn't getting sufficient attention - there are already dozens of votes. David Spart 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Spart, you appear to be next on the stalker hit list over at WR now. Given that, I'm surprised you don't see the damage this silly article causes. Derex 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Brandt has been involved in some marginally notable activities, e.g. Google Watch. That does not make Brandt himself notable. Simply merge anything notable from Brandt's article into those, delete, salt, and declare victory. Not one snippet of information need be censored or removed from Wikipedia. Is it really so essential that it be organized in a particular fashion? No, that's a judgement call we make every day on hundreds of articles. In this case, there are two reasons that tilt the otherwise fairly equal balance towards deletion. First, Brandt has asked us to do so. Regardless of my personal dislike for him, based on his deplorable treatment of Katefan, that does not make it ok to treat him poorly in return. Second, Brandt has poured considerable effort into causing problems for Wikipedia. I believe he is likely to be less energetic without this thorn in his side. Indeed, Brandt explicitly says he's likely to get tired of this: It's also true, however, that if my bio stays down, I'll get bored with the idea of expanding wikipedia-watch.org. It might just sit there like Google-Watch has been sitting there for almost two years now.[4] We've paid a huge price in time, lost editors, bad publicity, ill will, 13 AFD's + DRV, and paranoia. Witness the current nightmare involving Essjay, who asserts that avoiding stalkers like Brandt was the genesis of his fraud. Is this good for the encyclopedia? It has been, and will continue to be, enormously destructive. The cost-benefit analysis is simple. Zero benefit to keeping, as the information could equally well be merged elsewhere. Enormous damage on multiple fronts from keeping. People seem to imagine that somehow they are defending the principles of Wikipedia by voting keep. I submit that this is a deeply misguided view; it damages Wikipedia both in principle and in practice. Derex 03:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep WP is supposed to be objective. One very basic test of objectivity is willingness to include articles about its critics. Frankly, I cannot see how this could reasonably called NN, and. AGF, I translate that as "wishing it were NN" which is after all a very reasonable wish. I too wish he weren't being noticed.DGG 04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This morning, I attempted an alternative way forward, but unfortunately it failed. With it we also squandered a chance to establish the precedent for proper application of IAR - explain, act, discuss, revert yourself if the discussion fails to gather consensus for what you've done. A precedent could also have been set for properly reverting IAR actions: If you don't agree that it's the best thing to do, explain why, revert and let the previous process continue. The sad thing is that it was sabotaged exactly by the people who should have seen that this would have advanced their position in the results/process debate. I would only like to ask them to stick to the process at least now, and allow this AFD to be ran at the previously agreed time, so that people who were planning to present coherent cases can be allowed to do so. Zocky | picture popups 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The conflict of interest in having an article about Brandt is not to be ignored given the nature of his criticisms. He is not notable for anything else. Ashibaka (tock) 04:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:BLP applies to unsourced material. Plenty of sources are cited here to pass WP:N, if BLP concerns arise, remove poorly sourced negative information or apply an appropriate level of protection to the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Eh. Delete. Brandt's activism is notable and we should probably cover it. Brandt himself is only notable in connection with his activism: why not just cover this topic at Google Watch and be done with it? There's barely anything about him as a person here. In principle I agree he could have an article, but is that really the best way to present the relevant information? Mangojuice^talk 04:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I somehow think this person has many similarities to Jack Thompson. (the anti-video game attoney). SYSS Mouse 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack Thompson has recieved a lot more attention though.
• Delete There isn't anything about him that couldn't be covered in Google Watch. TJ Spyke 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable, passes WP:BIO easily. Not sure how many times this has to pass in AfD before this is accepted. Resolute 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will not say delete or keep, but I will say this: if the deletion of this article will not stop DB from outing us on his website, there is no need to make such a big deal out of it. Scobell302 05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have read through the novella above, and the truth is I heard of this individual only very briefly before reading this AfD. This rules out any malicious intent on my part. I think most of us can be sympathetic to an individual's lack of desire for an article here, or a photograph in the tabloids, or a nosy reporter in his/her front lawn... but the truth is that while Wikipedia is to be (and generally is) a "serious encyclopedia" it is only coherent and saved from being a giant blog by the fact that there is some consensus-based internal accountability for what the editors retain and discard from this website. This internal accountability appears in the form of our policies which, imperfect as they may be, must be followed unless there is a strong common-sense reason for invoking WP:IAR that saves us from those systematic imperfections. I've read through the delete votes, and I just don't see anything that compelling. I agree that it is possible the article may have been started because of some petty net.revenge tactic, and perhaps retained for a while due to this reason, but I have seen a number of subtle and not-so-subtle violations of the assume good faith guideline in regard to the editors voting to keep the article now.

Not to drag on too long, I have two main reasons for voting to keep: 1) It meets our policies. If these policies need to be changed, they need to be changed, but until they are it will not "hurt" anyone (the article's subject included) to abide by them. 2) Dhaluza makes a remarkably compelling argument based on how Wikipedia has worked and does work. The entry has survived a huge number of previous AfDs and, unless the article is deleted and salted, it's going to pop right back up, reflecting the obvious fact that there will never (never[never{never}]) be a perfect consensus on whether or not to include this article. No consensus defaults to keep. This is the way Wikipedia currently works, like it or not, and I have not read a single clear policy-based, consensus-based or precedent-based reason for removing this entry. ◄Zahakiel► 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - My sympathies to the closing admin. ◄Zahakiel► 05:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Shouldn't be too stressful - no consensus keep, and was always going to be. An RFC might have been a better way forwards. We're just arguing back and forwards about how notabile he is when we really should be asking "Is the damage caused by having this page greater than the damage that would be caused by making an exception to our usual policies on notability?" and "Would deleting this page stop the damage anyway?". I think the answers are no and no, but frankly, I'd be prepared to try anything, just as a one off experiment. Fully protect the page and see what happens. Or delete the page and see what happens. Our usual practices are not working. I sugest it's time to try something unusual. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - True enough. Frankly I find the "He's not notable" arguments passing strange. I hadn't heard much about him before, but I am sure I haven't heard about a lot of notable people. I think the problem is that people are confusing "notable" with "famous" which is a little different. Someone even said something like, "He is not notable because he's only known in his field." Well... that makes him notable, the size of the field notwithstanding. But you're right; in the big picture that is not of primary importance. ◄Zahakiel► 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I've never even heard of this guy until coming across this massive AfD (looks like I've been living in a cave), yet after a quick review I'd say he strongly meets WP:N standards, obnoxious as he may be. Krimpet 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Slim Virgin and Doc. I disagree with the assertions of Notability, I feel his article is self-indulgent navel-gazing that's presence is ultimatly harmful to the project. --InkSplotch 05:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure that there's much I can add to this discussion. Notable does not necessarily equal famous. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per Denny, and Jokestress (excellent arguments by the way: policy-based, and compelling). I would further add that it seems a little ridiculous that after the article on Daniel Brandt has in fact become well-researched and well-sourced that we would now abide by his wishes to delete the article (made most vocifierously when it was a "piece a crap"). Not having the article at Wikipedia would make it seem as though we have to something to hide. Keeping it and making sure it is absolutely excellent, would show that Brandt's criticism, while possibly valid at the time, no longer holds. Wikipedia has risen to challenge by designing policies and oversights that mitigate against such problems emerging again in the future, such as the additions to WP:BLP that make provisions for article subjects to challenge factual inaccuracies in articles about them. Tiamut 15:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 4

• Keep - Subject meets relevant notability guidelines. Rachel Marsden the person went all the way to ArbCom because her article was unduly weighted to the negative by a cadre of editors and admins expressly opposed to her politics; the article was fixed, and is in the process of being rebuilt. If Mr. Brandt is concerned that his article is unduly weighted towards the negative also, we can fix it the same way. What we cannot do is ignore our responsibility to the public and set a precedent of allowing the subjects of articles to have them deleted simply because they don't want an article about themselves. - Merzbow 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets current policy and guidelines for inclusion. Would not object if it an all it's history was stubified and was allowed to be rebuilt from the ground up. However, privacy concerns should be dealt with and a policy on such an issue should be created. Though, neither AfD nor DRV is the correct place to make policy.--Rayc 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - First inclination is towards keep, but this is really more trouble than it's worth. Merge to Google Watch and get on with life. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough...the price of admission is not worth it.--MONGO 07:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you explain what you mean in more detail? JoshuaZ 08:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question - Can someone please explain to me in a very simple way what "this article is not worth the trouble" means in this context? How much stress are our editors going to endure by keeping a policy-compliant article on a figure that most editors appear to believe meets notability guidelines? Will there be legal or social consequences? And I'm not saying this merely to agitate anything, it's just that I have seen a number of "not worth it" reasons for deletion, and I'm at a bit of a loss. Where is this coming from? ◄Zahakiel► 07:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Daniel Brandt has made it part of his mission in life to make Wikipedia accountable and to that end he is doing everything he can to find out and reveal the real identities of wikipedia administrators. Some people think he will stop if we delete his bio. He has said he will not. He says it is a matter of principle for him. WAS 4.250 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I have understood from reading about this issue. If that be the case, then the "too much trouble" argument should not have any bearing on this AfD, as I would think it shouldn't. ◄Zahakiel► 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it, in keeping with the decisions of many multiple previous deletion discussions. Rehashing this issue over and over and over again is pointless, Brandt isn't getting any less notable over time. Bryan Derksen 07:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • True, but consensus can change. The degree of reliablity of sources and general notability of topics has been steadily increasing and so having another AfD of a possibly borderline case is not intrinsically unreasonable. JoshuaZ 08:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • An article that has gone through AfD no less than twelve times and has come up with a "keep" result every one of those times is hardly a "borderline" case. I suspect the only reason this AfD wasn't speedied or snowballed as a keep as well is simply due to the messy nature of the unilateral deletion and AfD that preceeded it. Since you yourself suggest that the reliability and notability of the topic has increased since then, I don't understand why you'd think a thirteenth AfD would be useful. Bryan Derksen 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - No evidence has been presented here agains this notability that hasn't been brought up the first 12 times. There are plenty of non-trivial third party sources which is both necessary and sufficient for notability. Those who repeatedly bring this article up for deletion just haven't come to grips with that. Granted its not just new accounts drawn here by wikipedia-watch and related sites, but these afd's are beginning to be a waste of time. Savidan 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - My reason for this 'vote' are best expressed by User:William Pietri's comments above (see [5]) To add to that: (1) If the subject's wishes rather than notability are to be the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia, that simply means that only positive biographies will remain; for any biographies that contain information that the subjects consider unflattering (though it well may be neutral) will need to be deleted. (2) I don't understand what is meant by "too much trouble": If one or more editors, are disturbed by the drama surrounding this article, can't they just choose not to participate ? If on the other hand we are talking about legal issues, shouldn't the WP:OFFICE weigh in and simply "force" a deletion ? (3) If WP:IAR is the reason for deletion, nothing I or anyone else says here makes an iota of difference - so I won't comment on that. Abecedare 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Try this for too much trouble (a) Katefan, an extraordinarily fine administrator who had nothing at all to do with Brandt, has to leave Wikipedia because Brandt harasses her livelihood. Ponder on that ... someone's life is screwed up simply for contributing to Wikipedia, because of this article. (b) Essjay, an extraordinarily fine administrator, an arbitrator, and god knows what else, assumes a false identity apparently to avoid such stalking. Unfortunately, and perhaps understandably, he takes it a bit far. I assume you are aware of the consequences for Wikipedia of that? So, no, I guess this is really no trouble at all. By the way, Brandt's article isn't particularly unflattering. He just doesn't want a freaking article on him. I wouldn't either, and I'm about as notable as him, which is to say not much really. Derex 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Those are very valid concerns and sufficient reasons for an editor to choose not to edit the article; but not a reason for us to prevent other editors from making that choice and editing an article that meets all wikipedia policies and guidelines as they stand currently. Abecedare 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Katefan did choose not to ever edit the article. Didn't matter. Derex 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, verifiable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable in any field. MLA 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment And you explain the multiple interviews with him and articles about him how exactly? JoshuaZ 08:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it. We should not keep articles on nobodies who don't want to be included. Arguing about how "notable" the guy is just makes us look unable to act in concord with simple human decency. I urge an admin with balls to delete it right now and keep it deleted. Grace Note 09:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An "admin with balls" did this a week ago, and it didn't go very well. Trebor 09:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It made more progress in getting this article deleted and allowing everyone to just move on than anything else has yet. Grace Note 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Borderline notability only (internet activism tends to inflate the number of independent media mentions drastically, indeed this systematic bias is a great problem with the primary notability guideline) coupled with the difficulty in writing and maintaining a neutral version of this article, makes me believe that this should go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be much of an issue maintaining and writing a neutral article. Indeed, my experience shows far more trouble at Michael Savage and Michael Moore for examples. If the primary notability criterion needs to be resolved that is a much large policy issue that is unreasonable to address in a single AfD. JoshuaZ 08:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You have a point of course, but I think the issue with this article is not simply a case where the person is controversial. Here we have a case where the person is disliked strongly by a significant portion of the Wikipedia community, and I see serious conflict of interest issues when a community who dislikes the person is going to write up a supposedly neutral biography about him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, empirically speaking the Brandt article has a lot of positive material (such as his work with the government cookies) it is thus hard for me to see the conflict issue as actually being a problem when one looks at the edits that occur to the article and to the current state of the article. JoshuaZ 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He has been involved in some notable events that can be adequately documented in other articles. His personal notability is marginal at best. Frise 09:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT Having no opinion on the subject (though leaning toward keep), but seeing this has a history of uncompleted AfDs going on for years, might I suggest that this one be allowed to completion this time? And for this case only, is it possible we have multiple closing admins? This issue is simply too controversial for one admin too handle. I suggest letting at least three admins put together their closing comments on top of the page. That way, we have consensus from both the community and admins. --Edokter (Talk) 10:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Borisblue and others. The single most futile argument for deletion is that Brandt wants it deleted which is just a twisted take on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When the article passes WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV then whether or not the subject wants the article is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a service for the readers-not the editors and certainly for the subject. A valid argument for deletion would be the subject's so-called "borderline notability" but as WP:BIO is currently written-Brandt passes. If WP:BIO is changed and consensus established for notability criteria that would exclude Brandt, then the deletion argument for have more sway. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets notability guidelines and policies VegaDark 11:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why all the hubbub about an Brandt being notable (to some degree, and semi-notability is still notability) when just about everyone agrees he meets the criteria in the guidelines -- even the people voting delete? --Dookama 11:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Somewhat regretful keep - I think he is probably notable enough, and I can see no principled reason to delete. We would have to change WP:BIO in some way or adopt a policy about deleting biographical articles on request if the person is not a public figure. That is not how we currently do things, even if it should be. Metamagician3000 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In here and here there is current discussion on reforming the idea of a wikibiography from "biography" to "biographical article"- the difference being that a "biographical article" will have less pressure to be totally comprehensive, and only cover notable information about the subject. In the case of Brandt, for instance his article will only cover his activism and ***-watch activities, but not carry unnecessary personal information. I believe that this is a step forward, so please take a look at the page. Borisblue 12:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I came to this AfD with an open mind, as Doc Glasgow had requested. I've been watching it since it was created. That's why I asked for clarification on the first Delete vote, since I'd seen a lot of good Keep reasons by then, and no Delete reasons. Now that I've seen a fair number of arguments each way, I feel prepared to have my say. Basically, it most people seem to be breaking notability down into 3 "levels". A/ Not notable. B/ Notable, but little enough that if they don't want an article, they can ask for it to be removed. C/ Notable, we should have an article about them. Most of the Delete votes state that Brandt falls into category A or B. Most of the Keep votes state that either he falls in C, or that B doesn't exist (making him fall into C by default). At this point, I'm still not sure whether or not B should exist, but given the number of stories that've been written about him in prominent, and reliable sources, I'm inclined to agree that he falls into category C. --Maelwys 15:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt A Wikipedia without an article on a marginal internet activist is still a viable, useful, wonderful encyclopedia. A Wikipedia with one seems to just fall apart sometimes, over what is, in the grand scheme of things, a very trivial matter. Is it good for the encyclopedia to have this article or not?. WP:BIO isn't really the only consideration here. Dina 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 16:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment With all due respect, WP:IDONTLIKEIT hardly expresses my feelings here. I'm tempted to write an essay called WP:IREALLYFREAKINGHATEHOWDISRUPTIVETHISSTUPIDARTICLEIS. (Apologies in advance for snarkiness, it's not directed at you personally.) Wikipedia's been held hostage by this damn article for a long time now. It could end so easily. So yeah, it's an emotional vote. I also agree that his notability is borderline. He is not, for example George W. Bush. Wikipedia without an article on Bush would be ridiculous, Wikipedia without an article on Brandt is not. That's my argument. If WP:BIO and WP:BLP do change, considerations like the one I've posed may be relevant. This debate certainly will be. This is the 13th nom for a highly controversial article that's existence has had dramatic, real world effects. To me, to simply pretend it's about interpreting WP:BIO doesn't really address it. That's all. Dina 17:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The overwhelming evidence is that it cant end so easily, or indeed easily at all, SqueakBox 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Fair enough, perhaps my thinking is wishful. But thinking it through further it appears to me that we may be ignoring an internet guideline that's existed long before WP:BIO. Brandt is Wikipedia's biggest troll. There's no guarentee that if we don't feed him he'll go away, but if we continue to do so, he will inevitably stay. There isn't really a right or wrong here. I disagree with the arguments that deleting the article will inevitably set up an infinite list of precedents. Those individuals mentioned as examples would have to be willing to act with the same single-mindedness as Brandt. It is possible, but also unlikely that they would. I'm not suggesting (though on re-read, I suppose I did) that deleting this article would solve the problem. But keeping it, debating it, all of this creates this spiral of disruption that I suspect is very pleasing to certain types of personalities. Let's take the high road here -- if one is really available. You make a big stink about your article? Fine, you're not that important, so we delete. Don't let the door hit you (etc.). On to the next thing, we have more important things to do. Flipping through the CSD makes it clear that there's enough people who desperately want a Wikipedia article. It's a job in itself to delete them sometimes. So one more internet meme, user name, guy who's really good at a "grown up's" version of an online role playing game (ie. Brandt) gets deleted. We shrug and move on. It's just a suggestion, albeit a hopeful one. Dina 18:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this individual meets WP:BIO criteria and has independent sources cited on his article. The article meets WP:BLP, so not a problem here. If there are negatives things that are unsourced, remove them. He meets the guidelines not only for being a Wikipedia activist but a Google activist and his activities on the internet. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very difficult decision to make. The spirit with which we are supposed to go into this particular AfD (and, actually, all AfDs in general) is one of a review from first principles (de novo, as the lawyers put it, though IANAL) of the encyclopedic case for keeping or dropping the article, untainted by past AfDs, deletion reviews, talk pages, outside fora, arguing, debating, bitching, moaning, whining, and the associated emotional baggage. Being that we're all human, this can be very hard to do. This review should be based solely on whether the article's subject is proper for inclusion here. Lines of argument that aren't very good (despite the fact that I, myself, may have used some of them at times in the past... I'm human too) include "He's insisting that he be removed, and he's being a big pain about it... so we gotta teach him a lesson by refusing his request!!!"... or conversely, "He's insisting that he be removed, and he's being a big pain about it... so it just ain't worth it to keep the article... let's give in on this." There seems to be a growing trend on Wikipedia lately to decide to delete articles that are the focus of lots of fighting and griping, on the "just ain't worth it" grounds (Encyclopedia Dramatica and GNAA are two recent examples), but I disagree with this reasoning. On the other hand, if I then vote "keep" on the grounds of opposing such reasoning, then isn't that a vote based on emotional reactions, or ideological point-making, too? To get out of that paradox, it's necessary to put aside all such thoughts and consider only the notability and verifiability of the subject, by objective criteria. Here, it is my observation that Brandt has been written about numerous times by the media, and has frequently been used as a cited source in matters of public interest. Hence, he meets the criteria for inclusion. *Dan T.* 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am in complete agreement with that. I also think that the amount of "damage," or potential damage to Wikipedia is being vastly overstated. Wikipedia is not being disrupted (or its editors unnecessarily captivated) by this article or even the gigantic AfD it has generated 13 times. Only those who choose to be involved are involved, and the site rolls on with little notice (just compare the percentage of contributors to this page with the total number of Wikipedians, most if not all of whom know nothing of this matter). First principles is necessarily the only way to go in deciding this matter, not emotions, biases, or anything else unrelated to our policies or strong common-sense reasons for ignoring all the rules. ◄Zahakiel► 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The only real disruption this article has caused is the ceaseless debate over its existence. Has the subject of the article made it clear that he doesn't want the article to exist? Of course, but that's because the subject of the article runs an anti-Wikipedia organization (which, as far as I can tell, consists mostly of him). Firstly, I don't believe that we should remove an article solely because its subject doesn't approve of it. The article isn't the potential source of a legal issue, as far as I can tell, as it's more or less accurate. If people don't want to be documented, positively, negatively or neutrally, then they should stay out of the spotlight. Wikipedia is supposed to be a compilation of knowledge, and deciding to exclude anything from the encyclopedia on the basis that it's controversial is a self-defeating practice. Deleting this article sets a bad precedent that we can't afford. Secondly, and I know at least one person will jump on me for this- several people have stated their opinion that, despite policy, we should delete the article, because its subject doesn't approve of it. Well, I hold a more or less opposite position, also outside of policy: Daniel Brandt spends most of his time trying to damage Wikipedia's credibility and in a large way he has succeeded. If we deliberately choose not to document Daniel Brandt, this will only serve as further ammunition for him. It will not appease him. It will make us look, to his supporters, even more illegitimate- what sort of an encyclopedia, he'll say, would remove a well-documented person? Even if he doesn't reverse his position to further his goals, he -will- make it very public that Wikipedia gave in. Is it a poor reason to reject an AfD? Perhaps, but it's not my primary reason, and I think it's an issue. --Moralis 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps our deletion policy should be addressed to deal with such perennial cases. -Thirteen times?- Come on... --Moralis 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, Strong Keep. For one, he is clearly notable, with multiple, independent reliable sources mentioning him by name. Look at Denny's source list for proof. He meets WP:BIO by every possible standard. Aside from his Wikipedia-related activism, he also has Google Watch, NameBase, and the whole NSA cookies incident to his name (this won't count for anything, but I had heard of the NSA cookies incident long before I knew he had anything to do with attacking Wikipedia). The fact that he doesn't want the article is the worst possible reason to delete it; deleting an article because the subject wants it deleted is grossly POV. The article is very well sourced, so there are no BLP concerns (indeed, an ArbCom decision certifying that will pass very soon). If there are any unsourced statements, the proper answer is to remove the statements from the article, not delete the article. We've been through enough AfDs that you'd have to be a polydactyl to count them on your fingers. After this discussion closes, I propose SALTing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) for one year. jgpTC 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But two octopuses (octopi? octopodes?) could join together and count them with their feet. *Dan T.* 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a clever idea! - But couldn't someone just start the 15th nomination? David Spart 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep - I don't see why there's such controversy over this. Sources are cited in the article demonstrating multiple non-trivial coverage by independent sources, which is the central notability criterion of WP:BIO. So what's the issue? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• ZockyfyMerge to Google Watch. Has he, personally, received coverage in multiple independent sources separate from his activism? He's only notable in connection with this. --Random832 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, he has. See the first 11 articles in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination) - half of them have his name in the article title, all discuss him, as a person, not just his sites. Yes, he is mostly notable for what he does, but that is true of almost all the people in the Wikipedia - what else are they supposed to be notable for, their looks? Sam Walton is rarely discussed apart from Walmart, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the person. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain - Stubbify - Delete or possibly Stubbify Under WP:N, notability is generally permanent. The only major thing he's done was his involvement in the Seigenthaler incident and that in time will pass into oblivion. I can see a stub just pointing to his activism as a possibility without violating WP:BLP per users Zocky and Capt. Morgan above. Ripberger 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are multiple problems with the above comment. First, the notion of permanent notability is being misinterpreted- what that means is that once something or someone is notable, they always are. Second, the claim that all he is notable for is the Seigenthaler incident is inaccurate. As one can see from reading the article, among other accomplishements and actions, he broke the 2002 government cookie scandal (which might make him notable by itself) and he runs Google Watch (which got coverage in a variety of sources, and resulted in an interview with Salon). JoshuaZ 22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment After further reading WP:N, I have refactored my statement and move to Stubbify. Ripberger 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Changed to Abstain. Apologies to closing admin. Please disregard my previous statements. Ripberger 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 5

• Keep. In 2107, will Wikipedia (or whatever supersedes it) have an article on Daniel Brandt? I should hope so. If we delete it now, will the next well-meaning reader who stumbles onto the redlink and Google™s for his name recreate it? Probably, unless we protect the page. Why, then, delay the inevitable? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Page protection is a valid solution if we need to prevent the article from being recreated. Furthermore, there is clear precedent (mainly established in regard to internet memes) that the fact that many users keep recreating an article is not a strong argument for keeping. JoshuaZ 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• very strong keep - calling for the deletion of an article with so much content and so many references can only be censorship. Andy Mabbett 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - Out of spite/karma. --Tom 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's sick, has no policy basis, shows a deep misunderstanding of the concept of "karma" and almost seems like a deliberate strawman. Nothing on Wikipedia should ever be kept out of spite. JoshuaZ 08:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am actually very disturbed, but this isn't probably the place to go into that. Cheers --Tom 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Enlightened people treat their enemies with compassion no matter how much they want to hurt them. Indiawilliams 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually have no beef with this dude and do not consider him my enemy --Tom 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, let us remove this stain. --Golbez 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you explain in more detail why this is a stain and why it should be removed? JoshuaZ 08:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears that this whole debate hinges on the question of "who is notable"? To me, an occasional editor who happened to stumble across this whole thicket whilst reading up on the Wikipedia scandal du jour, I see "notability" as the answer to this question: Would someone who didn't read Wikipedia have any reason to know who this person is? A non-Wikipedia reader would know who George W. Bush is. A non-Wikipedia reader wouldn't have a clue who Daniel Brandt is. To me, that means Brandt is non-notable and the bio should be deleted. One should watch out for the circular logic of "we're talking about him on Wikipedia, so therefore he's notable on Wikipedia, so that's why we're talking about him on Wikipedia". Notability should refer to the world outside Wikipedia, not inside. -- Robster2001 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • He's very arguably notable within his field (of internet activism), and anyway, notability isn't measured by fame or number of people who have heard of someone. I doubt many people could name last year's Nobel Prize winners, but they are surely notable. Trebor 02:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The list of articles about him, not on Wikipedia, is impressive: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination) - a reader of Salon, PC Magazine, Linux Insider, Counterpunch, The Register, half-a-dozen others... would have a fine clue. That's what Wikipedia:Notability is all about. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I can't find my opinion up there in this ten car pile up of a discussion, but i'd like to rescind it and support deletion unless the subject be allowed to edit his own article. Otherwise, i'd sue this place if I were in his shoes. Just H^{editor review} 02:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful... remember the policy on legal threats. *Dan T.* 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was in any way a legal threat- am I reading his comment right? Borisblue 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't a legal threat from me unless I am somehow Daniel Brandt or you made an article about me and I felt violated the same way he seems to feel. I read Wikipedia Review sometimes and it seems like he's just itching for an excuse to sue Wikipedia. Just H^{editor review} 03:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Subject of article seems notable, didn't see a reasonable ground for deletion reviewing this lengthy discussion as best I could. Mister.Manticore 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only reason I know this guy is because of Wikipedia. LiveFyre 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And the only reason I know about Linor Abargil is from Wikipedia, that doesn't make her any not notable. JoshuaZ 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia itself didn't make Linor notable. Indiawilliams 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So? Notability is nothing to do with whether you've heard of someone or not, nor whether they are connected with Wikipedia. Trebor 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • In addition to what Trevor has noted about the nature of notability (and anyways, cf Jimbo Wales whose notability is due to Wikipedia), note that Brandt is notable for things other than Wikipedia- the article was originally written due to his work with google watch, and he was the one who broke the whole government cookie scandal. JoshuaZ 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep As much as I disagree with his views and obnoxiousness, Brandt has proven to be a (somewhat) notable internet activist.--TBCΦtalk? 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He's gotten enough press, both related and unrelated to Wikipedia, that he meats WP:BIO. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is notable for many separate news worthy events, and has chosen to put himself in the public eye. A delete based on notability would require that the standards for BLP are raised significantly, and I cant see where a new line can be drawn that would exclude this BIO without resulting in the deletion of large numbers of the other BLP. IMO, the only satisfactory way to delete this article is for the foundation to make a legally and ethically defensible policy that BLP's can be removed at the wish of the subject. Articles like this one and another related BLP up for deletion at the moment illustrate how encyclopaedia that anyone can edit can find itself becoming a tabloid. John Vandenberg 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Linuxbeak Solution (I think it's called that) where we keep the article deleted until Mr. Brandt dies, and then we can restore it and work on it. As a person with considerably low notability, Wikipedia won't take a blow from temporarily not having this article. Once he's dead, he really wouldn't care about an article about him because he's dead. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Unacceptable. Among other issues, do you expect Wikipedia to keep a list of who is still alive whose articles we've deleted? Oh number 32 kicked the bucket! I guess while his family is grieving we can bring back that article now that caused him so much distress because of course none of them would mind. Now, if you wanted to do something like 25 years after the guy is dead that might make some sense. But we still have the fundamental issue, under what logic should we delete an article on a clearly notable individual who has been more than willing to talk to the press simply because he doesn't like their being internet content about him that he doesn't have control of? Until some gives a satisfactory answer to this question, the matter stands. JoshuaZ 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Temporarily? It makes it sound as if he is at death's door whereas he is still a relatively young man and could easily (and hopefully) live another 40+ years, SqueakBox 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't understand. Assassins are already hired...  Grue  08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of people like me are going to visit Wikipedia Watch knowing nothing about its founder or intents--is it overly biased or unreliable? The first place I came to was of course Wikipedia Watch, which redirects here. Without this page I wouldn't have had a reliable, concise, and (hopefully) neutral basis for evaluating WW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bmdavll (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep as I do believe this person meets the applicable notability criteria and the article meets policy standards. I heard of him before I ever accessed Wikipedia (the cookie thing). However, I think he has a point about the quality of the writing, having reviewed a bunch of different versions of the article (the current version needs work too). So, just as a wild suggestion, what if one of our truly talented writers was to sit down with the reference list on the talk page and craft a top notch article - using an IP address if he or she preferred? Frankly, if that had happened way back with the first complaint he had made, I have a hard time imagining that there would have been all this drama for all this time. Risker 10:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per jeff et al. Anchoress 11:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep already survived 13 AFDs. What's the problem here? Isn't surviving 13 AFD's automatically WP:SNOW?? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, it's not... consensus can change. .V. _[Talk|Email] 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Additionally, a lot of the AfDs (all but one?) were speedily closed, so not really judging consensus. Trebor 16:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trebor, The GNAA article survived like what 20 AFDs before getting deleted, as for me Delete the main reason why we have an article on Brandt is because he critizes wikipedia, if not the article would have long been a redirect to Google Watch because of borderline notabilty, and he doesn't want an article on himself, with cases like Brandt where notablity plays a factor, we should honor that.Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honor?? Bah humbug! WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! -- Kendrick7^talk 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I've read the article and the subject seems notable enough. He has published books and is not a simple Wikipedian trying to put an article about himself. If the article survived 13 AfD's, I would say that it should survive a 14th one (and hopefully this should be the last one). Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 12:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Question out of curiosity: which books? Brandt isn't a published author, at least not that I know of. Dragomiloff 14:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not a published author though, as for the survived 13 afds, see the comment above, again consensus can change.

• Keep he is just notable enough.  Grue  13:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: with the current controversy surrounding this article, it seems clear to me that this subject is only going to continue to rise in notability. We need to be careful as to exactly how his article is editted since his notability increasingly derives from meta-referencing Wikipedia and obviously many editors will have conflicts of interest simply by virtue of being affiliated with Wikipedia, but deleting an article on this individual wholesale is inappropriate in my estimation and seems to be based mostly on a distaste for the subject of the article and a (somewhat disingenuous, in my estimation) misplaced concern with the opinions on the subject as to whether an article about him should exist. There is no criteria which state anywhere in this encyclopedia that one of the criteria for inclusion should be whether or not the subject wants to be in the encyclopedia. This is something that should not change, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I think it is a decent article, referenced, reasonably unbiased, with the subject being notable enough to be looked up in a general reference work. If the article weren't here, I, being unaware of the internal controversy, would find myself creating it. Gosgood 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think there's much doubt that this subject is notable according to the guidelines, and it should be possible to write a fair balanced article on him. There's never been consensus that we should delete articles on less notable people upon request from the subject. And I don't find arguments that we should delete it because of the disruption it causes very convincing; in essence, that seems to be saying we should sacrifice our objectivity because it causes difficulties. I also think merging it to all the related pages would be an illogical way of organising it. It would leave mentions of this person in several articles, but leave no place where you could find out all the things he is involved in. Trebor 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Please don't feed the trol, I don't see this page as belonging in an encyclopedia. Mineralè 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you expand on why you don't feel it belongs? Trebor 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and SALT The subject doesn't want an article (apparently), he's borderline NN, and having the article is clearly more trouble than it's worth informationally. MSJapan 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain how he is borderline notable (and what that even means) and why that justifies deletion if the article is "more trouble than it's worth informationally" (in fact, an explanation of what that means and a an explanation of how this is "clear" would also be nice). JoshuaZ 05:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 6

• Keep, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the article at all. WP:DENY doesn't apply to articlespace. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As noted by many others, he easily meets notability standards. Whether we like him (or, as the case may be, he likes us) or not is irrelevant. Oskar 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In response to the people who say "what if George Bush asked for that" I'd say that if an individual is notable enough then they won't have time to personally submit 13 AfDs to wikipedia. That is my own little notability test for Bios--feel free to make it policy.MikeURL 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not all the AfDs were instigated by Brandt himself, furthermore, someone could hire someone else to do it. Also, a notable retired or semi-retired person (such as George H. W. Bush) could in fact nominate his own article fairly regularly). Notability has nothing to do with how much free time the person has. JoshuaZ 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the use of the word "instigated" but I think you meant "initiated". Fine. A notable person, at the level of H.W. Bush, COULD nominate (or instigate) multiple AfDs but have they? A notable person, at the level of H.W. Bush, COULD also hire people to do so but have they? Examples? I'd argue that Brandt has the time and inclination to obsess on wikipedia precisely because his notability is low enough to leave room for such activities. Truly notable people don't hang out in IRC chat rooms all the time. I mean this is really common-sense that only gets lost in the translation because we talk about Brandt a LOT on WP.MikeURL 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to second JoshuaZ on this one. The Free time=Notability standard is a very weak link to make. Furthermore, Internet activity doesn't necessarily mean free time. We have several Wikipedians with articles that are certainly notable despite the "free time" that they can invest here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was giving this some thought and I think a lot of this could be solved by only including people for whom enough secondary source material exists to write a full biography of the person's life. I do believe that is a higher standard than exists now but makes a lot of sense to me (and would be easier to determine than what I suggested above).MikeURL 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also struck my vote because I think only a policy/guideline change/addition can make it appropriate to remove the article. Common sense isn't enough.MikeURL 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable, meets all requirements for Keep, bad precedent if deleted. Cartwarmark 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it with people going "We can't delete this article 'cause it sets a bad precedent"? What, do you think that everyone that's the subject of an article's gonna come on here and clamor for us to remove them? Who cares if some barely notable wino (figuratively speaking) wants his article deleted? Indiawilliams 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Who cares if some ... wants his article deleted?"

Exactly... if they meet the criteria for inclusion (BIO/ATT), and theres no legal reason (OFFICE) to delete, why delete? - Denny 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I see it in a simple way: he's notable and so we have an article about him. Period. Now, it's entirely possible (I'd argue likely) that individuals other than Mr. Brandt will want to pressure Wikipedia and Wikipedians for the deletion of articles about themselves. To my mind, it's as problematic to delete an article at the behest of the subject as it is to allow the subject to re-write his article with impunity - they're both forms of deception. Mr. Brandt meets our guidelines, and I feel that should be the end of it. It's not about "spite" or "revenge" or anything like that. My motivation is writing an encyclopedia, not frustrating Mr. Brandt Cartwarmark 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by his Wikipedia Review posts I think there are plenty of legal issues. Just...look at them. That man is not joking. Indiawilliams 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No Ted Kennedy wont be coming here next.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The gentleman passes WP:BIO, and his article is well-sourced. Other concerns, including the gentleman's desire for the article's deletion, are irrelevant. The current content reads well, and complies with NPOV: Wikipedia can cover this subject dispassionately, and should continue to do so. As criticism of Wikipedia is sure to be noteworthy for the foreseeable future, and as Brandt's role in that topic continues to be prominent, it is likely his notriety will only increase. Xoloz 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is an emotional issue and I actually doubt that are able to discuss this / maintain the article in an objective manner (which leads me to say delete). - Apart from the one incident (a protest, we don't have articles about people who have been in the media a lot more for protesting and I really fail to see the notability on that front. Other than that, it's mostly Google and Wikipedia which I have to say, we have Google and Wikipedia with the respective sections. I also believe the subject should have a voice here, and we shouldn't simply throw that away as "trolling" or "harassment." This article has become one where NPOV is a major major concern, people are emotional and emotional people have problems following NPOV. Many people on Wikipedia may not agree with Mr Brandt's tatics, but to keep an article "out of spite" or "revenge" is silly and immature. -- Tawker 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The subject has apparently expressed his views very clearly on the talk page, seeWikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)#Shut this silly thing down, SqueakBox 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The subject has made his view that he wants the article deleted perfectly clear. He is simply complaining about the number of AfD's / process -- Tawker 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems notable enough. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. How long will this ludicrous soap opera go on for? Having articles on marginally notable people who do not want them is unnecessary and unhelpful. Rebecca 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I wandered into this more-or-less by accident, but I've heard of Daniel Brandt from his work in regards to Google. (As a professional programmer, I read that sort of thing.) In my opinion, anyone with the litany of reference that Brandt has spawned satisfies the criteria of notability. Whether Brandt himself wishes to be the subject of a Wikipedia article is a clear red herring argument—an individual cannot retroactively remove themselves from the public eye by wishing it were so. Thanks, Dan Slotman 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I really appreciate someone pointing out WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. We are not wedded to this article by necessity. We don't have to have this article. Truly is barely notable, and while the external liability may be negligible, the internal liability is obvious. Shenme 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the lenght of this AfD and all the previous ones do demonstrate a problem of sorts, but I think there is an obvious problem with deleting this article, as it'll just show people that if you make enough of a problem then the article that offends you will be deleted. Especially if the decision to delete is in any way influenced by consideration of the disruption it causes to Wikipedia. That just sends the wrong message. Mister.Manticore 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but cut out the nonsense. On the deletion review, I endorsed the deletion partly because of notability concerns and WP:BLP. After further consideration, I don't think there's a good case for deleting the article for either reason. However, I do think it should be significantly pruned so that it covers only what the recent news sources deal with, namely, his online activism. Thus, everything to do with antiwar protests and so forth should be removed. The next section should also be removed, save a brief mention of Namebase. The Siegenthaler section should be reduced to a link because it's already covered in the appropriate article. The PIR schism sentence should be removed for precisely the same reason. This way, we'll have an article on Brandt - I see no way out of this - but we'll keep it to the bare essentials.

Let me also point out that deleting Daniel Brandt does not delete "Daniel Brandt." His name appears in other articles, and it seems unrealistic to search and destroy every mention of him everywhere. So, "im kvar az kvar" (Hebrew, "if so, then you might as well...") - let Wikipedia mention him as serves its needs, and not more than that. YechielMan 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Info may be notable, but it would be better merged to something like Google Watch for organizational reasons. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's sourced. Also because there have been 2 fully in process keep closures on this already, so the endless nominations are somewhere between highly and ludicrously disruptive. Things don't become magically non-notable on demand. --tjstrf talk 08:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, for the reason given directly above me. And also because for those who say it should be deleted because he is not notable, this is completely wrong. Here on wikipedia we have defined notability as requiring that there be multiple references about the subject, which this with ease passes. Hence he is notable. Mathmo ^Talk 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disambiguate / stubbify per Zocky / Hipocrite. Several of Brandt's activities are notable enough, but there is nothing that we can make a real biography article from (any connection between his activities is original research). Kusma (討論) 12:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or (as a distant second choice, after a lot of cleanup work) Chainsaw-Merge to Criticism of Google/Criticism of Wikipedia/Criticism of websites for whom content relevancy is an important design criterion (okay, maybe not that). As noted, this is a sourced article on a prominent critic of popular websites who appears to do everything in their power to get into the limelight. There's plenty of content; the relevancy of individual bits should be weighed and all utter crap be removed and if needed, it can then be merged. But regrettably, the subject is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. Remember, folks, AfD Isn't Cleanup®, nor is it WP:PM/WP:RM. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Person himself is fringe. Any notable content can be merged into Ciricism of Wiki. Just because there are articles on pornstars that do not belong in wiki does not excuse an article on a fringe activist that does not belong in wiki either. Avi 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment He's mentioned in at least two dead tree resources for his work on deep indexing, which makes him notable. Just because he went one to criticize wikipedia at some point doesn't mean he stops being notable for his other accomplishments. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article never met the first criteria of WP:BIO which is "multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." For a time, there was only one referernce that treated Brandt as a subject in a biographical context. Every other referernce made trivial mention of Brandt's anti-Wikipedia and anti-Google stance and his activities with the CIA/NSA website. In the past week, it has been determined that this one reference was unsuitable because the newspaper uses Wikipedia as a source. This leaves no external sources that are of a biographical context. There are references that are interviews with the subject, but the discussion was not of a biographical context; it didn't discuss Brandt's background, just his recent activist activities. Even these do not pass the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO because the sources must be "independent of the person." It's well past the time where this article should have been deleted. I also concur with and endorse all of User:SlimVirgin's comments on this matter. This article has caused pain not just for Brandt, but for many people connected with the project and this article. It's time to end the pain. —M (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - OK, I'd like to clear up this specious claim about the San Antonio Express-News article by Chasnoff once and for all. Here's the piece. [6] Here's the Brandt article immediately prior to that piece. [7] What exactly do you think was used from Wikipedia? Jokestress 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The above user writes, "There are references that are interviews with the subject, but the discussion was not of a biographical context." That doesn't matter - the section of WP:BIO being quoted above is strictly about establishing notability, not about sources for the actual biographic information within the entry itself. In other words, if the interviews establish notability for any reason, they do not have to be of a biographical context. The biographical information contained in the article can be drawn from elsewhere (e.g., sources that are not entirely independent of the subject) as long as they can be verified... if the notability is there. And again, notability and fame are two different things. Brandt may not be famous, because many people do not know about him, and few outside the context of his activism, but in the fields of his activity, he has been noted by a number of independent sources, meeting Wikipedia's requirements for an article. Quick way to decide notability: "Has the subject been noted by a number of non-self-published sources?" The answer in this case is, "Yes." And, whatever else may be said about it, pain or difficulty is not mentioned anywhere in the policies or guidelines about deletion or retention of encyclopedic entries. Consider... what kind of credible encyclopedia filters its content based upon the desires of its topics?? Wikipedia would hardly be worth the paper it's not printed on if it were to bow to the wishes of individuals when deciding content. ◄Zahakiel► 19:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment His work on deep indexing would seem to pass him under the Creative Professional section of WP:BIO#Special cases -- Kendrick7^talk 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Independent of the person" refers to the writer or publisher of the source; it doesn't mean interviews aren't allowed, it means that self-published articles don't count, and the publisher isn't the subject's employer, employee, or brother-in-law. There isn't any restriction on the number of quotes from the subject, and a thorough article on a living person will naturally have an interview if it can. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 7

• Keep, absent any real evidence that the article (rather than its subject) has harmed anyone. "Notability" is everybody's favorite word these days, but it means fuck-all in the big picture. You can gerrymander your "notability" guidelines however you want, but there is no reasonable inclusion criteria which this article would fail, none which the other cruft on your watchlist would satisfy, no magic bullet, no hypothetical arbitrary threshhold that doesn't take the unprecedentedly low stoop of mentioning the subject by name, even. I don't know how could I make it any clearer that there is no basis in policy or guideline to delete this page. Unplagiarized, neutrally presented information verifiable by a source other than ourselves; That is the only inclusion guideline established by policy. Everything else is a harmonious ad-libbing at best, and an aimless pissing match at worst. Guidelines are acceptable to the extent that they are based on precedent, and on the opinions of our core contributors the people who know what they are talking about, the people we trust, regarding the quality/usefulness/maintainability of any given page. Of course, these are secondary to actual policy. If these are ambiguous, the moral default is live and let live, find some other area to continue your gate-crashing, albeit good faith, attempts to "improve" the encylopedia. I've read all the excuses with which people have tried to justify deleting this article, so don't reiterate them for my sake. My bullshit detector has blown about twelve fuses in the last two weeks. I've had enough of this. —freak(talk) 20:22, Mar. 5, 2007 (UTC)

OMG FVck you 2, bitch!!1 Or, insulting the opposition is not going to win over their hearts. Indiawilliams 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? Alf^Photoman 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the only reaction freakofnurture can expect to get with the tone he was using. Indiawilliams 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Surelynotfromsomeonewhodoesn'twanttobeinvolvedinafight,however. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WhereIcomefromwedon'tfightthel337speakers,wejustlaughatthem ^_^ Indiawilliams 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Censor the critics then we have nothing left to keep us honest. "Notability" is my favorite language of thought. Enough to justify inclusion. Lets move on and wrap this up. --QuackGuru 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject, article is rigorously cited with numerous reliable verifiable and non-trival sources. Written with NPOV and meets BLP 71.82.88.117 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC) sorry I wasn't signed in. Edivorce 04:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The way I read the Wikipedia Attribution policy, especially the part about original research, it means that no consensus of Wikipedia editors is able to originate the statement that a person is notable, but that editors wanting to make this claim would have to find a number of reliable sources saying explicitly that the person in question is notable. Reliable sources here would be things like a Standard Who's Who or maybe another encyclopedia. Don de la Muncha 05:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do we do that for any other subjects? I don't think we do. why here? - Denny 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Attribution and Neutrality policies are stated quite explicitly to be the main determiners of content, with a priority that overrides every editorial opinion, consensual or otherwise. If we do not follow our stated policies, in letter and in spirit, or if there is a disabling contradiction among the various policies, then that is a problem for us, and something will have to give somewhere. Right now, we are originating the opinion that somebody is notable, and that goes against the grain of the No Original Research constraint. Don de la Muncha 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. We are following WP:N and WP:BIO. See the myriad of independent non-trivial reliable sources as per WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notability and Notability (People) are prioritized as Guidelines. They cannot override Attribution (No Origination Of Opinion). You would need to find multiple independent sources saying explicitly that so-and-so is a notable person. Don de la Muncha 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is one of the strangest misinterpretations of guidelines and policies I have ever seen. You confuse notability about whether we should have an article and notability as verified. WP:N determines if someone is notable for purposes of having an article. You would be correct in that we cannot in an article say "X is notable" without a source saying so. JoshuaZ 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Professional journalists and scholars, and even just plain ol' ordinary folk, do not consider it strange that their actions should be reasonably consistent with their assertions. If this is a strange idea hereabouts, then maybe we need to pause and reflect on that. Don de la Muncha 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• No need for word games about adjectives. So you agree that you've misintrepreted policy? JoshuaZ 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not in the least. The whole point of Wikipedia Attribution Policy is that Wikipedia (1) cannot be a primary source for any opinion or statement, (2) cannot publish original thought, (3) cannot originate ideas of any kind, (4) cannot even present a novel analysis or a synthetic inference from existing data. This is the gist of the Attribution (No Original Thought) Policy, and it outweighs any consensus of Wikipedia editors, including all other policies and guidelines. Jimbo Wales has called it "non-negotiable" time and time again. That is the policy. Don de la Muncha 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify - is it your contention that we should not have an article about anyone who has not been explicitly called "notable", even if they have been used as the main subject and in the titles of articles from otherwise notable publications? [8] [9] [10] [11] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is simply my observation that Wikipedia Editors are conducting what anybody else would call an "Opinion Poll" in order to decide whether a certain person is "Notable". Whether an Opinion Poll is conducted by interviewing Mr. and Ms. Person In The Street, by a sampling of what Wikipedia Editors consider to be "Notable" Newspapers, or by meta-enumerating your favorite search engine hits, it still amounts to the same thing, to wit, Original Research conducted by Wikipedia Editors. And that, according to present policy, is a BIG NO NOOO. Don de la Muncha 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• You're engaging in wikilawyering of the worst kind. A decision has to be made on whether each person, place, or thing featured here is notable or not. If that's "original research", so be it. *Dan T.* 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don, I think again you are confusing information that can go into an article with the meta-information of whether to have an article. Indeed, by your logic we could never decide to have an article how to close any *fD because the closing would be oriignal research. JoshuaZ 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Our notability procedure says nothing of the sort and if this were the case many biographies would need to be deleted. The rule is multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources. And we have that, easily. JoshuaZ 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I still remember the first traffic ticket I ever got. Being a virgin, I ingenueously said to the trooper, "But I always drive that speed down that road", and he politely explained to me how confessing to multiple violations was never ever considered a valid defence in a present instance. Don de la Muncha 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don, you are a very new user and so you may not have a strong grasp on policy at this time. The bottom line is that notability for inclusion is distinct from saying "X is notable" in article space. Furthermore, Wikipedia in fact to a large extent works off of precedent so your analogy with the speeding tick is irrelevant. JoshuaZ 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Carriage Return 1). I see that some folks have a lot more time to spend on this than I do, so I will try sum up how I see it for today. Not my contention. Not my policy. What I see is some very strong language about Not A Primary Source and No Original Thought in the Attribution Policy, and there is a maximum precedence ordering that is currently assigned to that. On that principle, it should never happen that somebody will say "X is notable" just because Wikipedia takes notice of X. I get the feeling that people will continue to differ about what's Notable Enough for a Newspaper Article and what's Notable Enough for an Encyclopedia Article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not an Almanack, not an Opinion Poll, and not an Op-Ed column. Outside observers, of which there are especially many right now, will only respect Wikipedia if it has Policies that it applies equally to all cases. You do the math. Don de la Muncha 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, so the bottom line is that you don't understand the difference between deciding that something meets WP:N and saying inside an article that "X is notable" one is ok, the other is no this clear from both the wording of the policies and long standing precedent. If this were not the case a great many articles would need to be deleted. For example, I suspect that many US Presidents articles would need to go since I doubt anyone has ever bothed in a reliable source saying something like "George Washington was notable" and certainly most elected officials in congress and various parliments are out. You don't really believe this is policy do you? JoshuaZ 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Carriage Return 2). I have stated my position and my reasons. In making your argument, you seem to find it necessary to refer to my personal characteristics, to speculate on my reading comprehension skills, and to invoke an unspecified superiority of experience and expertise with Wikipedia policy. Technically speaking, these are ad hominem arguments, and they are especially odd to hear in this environment. People may have an expert grasp of Wikipedia policy — I have no beef with the possibility of that — but like every other claim of expertise, they will have to articulate it here, and not just insist on their automatic claim to it. For that we have no recourse but turning to the texts of policy as they are written. If we find that we cannot produce a good encyclopedia by that prescription, then the R_x will have to be adjusted. P.S. I am not an apothecary. Don de la Muncha 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, one more attempt to explain this — roughly speaking you are confusing meta-information with information. Whether the person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article is meta-information and we are allowed to do various forms of OR and such to decide if there is sufficient evidence. What is prohibited is OR to determine information, that is material that goes into articles. JoshuaZ 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you think you can work that Original Rationalization into the current policy statements, then be my guest, but until then I will have to go with what's presently there. We all know that meaning is context-dependent, so you might be able to get away with saying that EnglishWikipedia:"Notability" means something different than EnglishLanguage:"Notability". Let me know how that works out, but I can at least see the possibility of it. You may even be able to get away with convincing other people that ArticleSpace:"Notability" means something else besides PolicySpace:"Notability", but I think you'll have something more of a fight on your hands with that. But when it comes to arguing that DanielBrandt:"Notability" is a different standard from RyanJordan:"Notability", or pick your favorite scandal of the month, then I think that most folks will start getting just a little bit suspicious of what we say is Wikipedia Policy. Don de la Muncha 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Brandt and Essjay have the same standard of notability — WP:BIO — the same primary inclusion criterion as used for everything. If something else had been intended by this arrangement, don't you think someone would have already brought up this issue? Wikipedia Notability is a question of how many and what sort of sources we have a long with a few other things. We can evaluate those without falling afoul of WP:OR, we do this every day on many far less contentious AfDs. JoshuaZ 02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think that User:Don de la Muncha has got a good grip on the situation here and is making a judgement call where there is reasonable grounds to do so within the WP:N policy. Using WP:BIO's primary criterion is a tough argument to make because no secondary sources have been provided. WP:N only loosely defines "notable" in terms of other loosely defined words like "non trivial" or "substantial". In the end, a judgement call is typically being made in cases where a secondary source does not exist (i.e. a real book hasnt yet been written by an undeniably reliable and qualified source). I have voted keep because a BIO crosses a magical line in my head that says "this is important and verifiable stuff" and "other more important stuff will also be tossed if this is deleted", but I can understand a newcomer shaking their head at this subject being considered "encyclopaedic" despite whatever criteria that we may like to use.
• All that said, now I look at these google scholar results, I think it would be easy to justify the article using the WP:BIO special case for "Creative professionals". John Vandenberg 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, put simply, you're wrong. We have a large number of secondary sources. We have articles that mention him on the AP wire, on CNN on the NYT, 2 interviews, and at least two reliable secondary sources focusing on Brandt's life. We meet WP:BIO's primary condition in spades. JoshuaZ 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• N.b. I know it is different in Europe, but here in the States Who's Who is basically a vanity publication. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gistification. Real life called me away for a while, so let me try to summarize my take so far on the discussion that I was having way above, mostly with JoshuaZ. Don de la Muncha 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (Note to closing admin — Don de la Muncha posted his initial reasoning above this extension of his reasoning here. -- Jreferee 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

1. I think we have agreed that Wikipedia Attribution Policy, as currently written, militates against making an explicit assertion in an article that "X is a notable person" unless we can find the right sorts of sources explicitly saying that X is a notable person. We agree that there is some kind of distinction between this explicit assertion and the implicit assertion of notability that is involved in making an editorial decision to write a biography of that person. So far so good. But I think that this distinction is what is commonly called "a distinction without a difference", while JoshuaZ thinks that there is a significant practical difference between the two actions. Don de la Muncha 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
   1. I think it may make more sense to move this discussion to the area above where we started it, or even better to one of our talk pages since the unique policy interpretation will likely have no influence on the final decision. I'm becoming more and more perplexed about (a) why you don't see that there can be article space restrictions that don't apply to deciding whether we have an article and (b) why you would think if there were such an amazing glaring problem in our policy and guidelines that no one but you has ever noticed it. JoshuaZ 08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      1. From what I read in the above instructions, this discussion is not supposed to be so much a matter of raw votes or intensity of feelings as a question of the better argument for what we should do. That is how I understood your interventions above, questioning my position and the reasons that I gave for it, all in the spirit of arriving at fair and rational applications of established policy. Don de la Muncha 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
         1. With regard to JoshuaZ's Point (a), I have already said several times that I see some kind of distinction between explicitly saying, "X is a notable person", and implicitly saying that X is a notable person by dint of including their Personal Biography in Wikipedia. I am just saying that I do not see a practical distinction between these two things. For all practical purposes, those are just two different ways of saying the same thing. That is not just my perception — that is just the way that Common Sense and the General Reader would regard it. Don de la Muncha 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
         2. With regard to JoshuaZ's Point (b), it was clear to me that many people had foreseen these very sorts of issues in writing the various policies and guidelines, and that was precisely why they wrote them the way that they did. Whether we have reached the best solution yet is a separate question, but I'm just going by the policies as written, along with the priorities that are assigned to them. The declared purpose of the Wikipedia project prohibits it from becoming a primary source, and its policies must be crafted to that purpose. If you ask the editors of a secondary source where they got the notion to print "S is a notable P" and all they can say is "from Wikipedia", then something has gone wrong somewhere. It's our job to make sure that the fault does not lie with us, that the buck does not stop here. Don de la Muncha 15:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
            1. Don, your argument here is hopeless. This argument in particular is risible. You know that this is true. I have come across some attempts by Wikipedians to get their own way by baffling people with their own intepretation of WP:OR — a very malleable policy. I am not interested in getting into a debate about this since it is bordering on feeding the trolls. David Spart 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
               1. I think that it would serve our ends here if people could make specific logical criticisms of each other's arguments and be assiduous to avoid even the appearance of personal insinuations. If Wikipedia Attribution Policy is too malleable for us to hammer out high quality, well-sourced articles with it, then that is a separate question. Right now we need to attend to how this high level Policy impacts on our lower level notability guidelines. Don de la Muncha 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Wow, that made me tired, so I think I will quit now and continue from here tomorrow. Don de la Muncha 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
3. I also agree with JoshuaZ that "Brandt and Essjay have the same standard of notability — WP:BIO — the same primary inclusion criterion as used for everything". There is some additional discussion of this point below, where a distinction is made between notability as an individual person, deserving of a full-fledged biography, and notability merely for particular actions and incidents. No doubt the current situation is in a state of more than usual flux, but it's clear that Wikipedia Editors recognize such a distinction, no matter how variously they may judge different cases. Don de la Muncha 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Adequately sourced, meets notability criteria. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No, he's not the most notable person with an article on wikipedia. But at the same time, he is notable enough under present guidelines and the article is sourced. Thus there is no reason to delete --RaiderAspect 12:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO as far as I can tell, and is more than adequately sourced. Rogue 9 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I came across Brandt's name in the press. Not a clue who he was so looked him up on Wikipedia. That's what Wiki's for isn't it? I'm a bit stunned that anyone might suggest it should be deleted but suspect it's to do with the edit animosity. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point... one of the great things about Wikipedia is how whenever you encounter a mention of something in the news or online, like a newsworthy person or an Internet meme, there's usually something about it on Wikipedia to look up. Take that, Britannica! *Dan T.* 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly meets the various criteria for inclusion as per WP:BLP and WP:BIO. And since his actions (running the G-watch and WP-watch campaigns/websites) conflict with his claimed desire for privacy, I see no reason to delete "because he wants it". It looks like a well-cited, well-written article to me. Heck, I wish a lot more of the junk on WP met our editorial standards of WP:NPOV and WP:CITE so thoroughly... --DeLarge 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to me that this latest AFD is taking place at least partially because of the Essjay crap. Really, there is no reason to delete this article and my opinion is that the only real argument in favor of deletion is "I don't like it/him" or because the subject wants it deleted. Neither are valid arguments. The article is well sourced and the subject is verifiable. Notability is NOT an official policy, however the article also establishes notability. This article has survived 12 nominations, and it looks like it will survive a 13th. Let it be. TheQuandry 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone !voting for delete should get a spanking and sent to bed without supper for being completely unable to apply simple notability criteria to an article. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Imperial Xenu Delete. Brandt is a critic of our fabulous project and our fabulous creator and we must not mention him by name or give him any credibility whatsoever. I would like to suggest that "editors" that vote for keep should be logged and sent back to Level 2 for additional auditing. 130.76.64.16 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No no, Xenu is the evil galactic overlord. He doesn't want things like auditing. Please get the scientology space opera correct. JoshuaZ 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't call Xenu evil you heretic!. Douchebag! Heretic! Clearly you have not got to level 8 yet you ignoramus. David Spart 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per "our" side of this argument. --Bobak 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per wikipedia's guidelines and policies. - Peregrine Fisher 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per just about everyone. This is the 13th nomination. Can't this thing sit for a little while before people renom it *again*? Awartha 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per Doc, Proto, IndiaWilliams, Derex and many others. 13 times should be the charm for this deletion. This article is a waste of Wikipedia space. The existence of this non-notable bio is an insult to the hard drive this ridiculous article is sitting on. ProtectWomen 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone made a good point that the material could be covered in the other articles that mention him. Look what happened to Ali Sina. If we lost the article on Daniel Brandt, who would really miss it? This here is what should happen to the article on Daniel Brandt--ProtectWomen 06:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If covered in other articles then we cannot delete the history per the GFDL if we use any material from here. Furthermore, unlike both Ali Sina and Peppers, Brandt meets WP:BIO which gives us much less leeway. JoshuaZ 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Deleting this article would be a horrible precedent for Wikipedia. Certainly Wikipedia needs better verification procedures, but removing an article because of protest would contradict the aims of any encyclopedia. Tfine80 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has it occured to anyone else how absurd it is do delete an article that six other wikipedias have an article on - does that not tell us something? David Spart 21:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• It tells us that 7 deadly sins do not a single virtue make. Don de la Muncha 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• No it does not. Particularly since you can't prove a negative. But what do 6 deadly sins make? That is the question vicar. David Spart 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Six wrongs don't make a right grandma. How about that for a trite cliche? LOL David Spart 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, since nobody has demonstrated it's a wrong in the first place except declaring it outright under the most absurd arguments, the whole six wrongs argument is pretty piss poor. DreamGuy 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 8

• Keep. He meets WP:BIO, per many above. Furthermore, I don't care at all what Brandt thinks of his article being on Wikipedia. I would consider its removal on the grounds of his displeasure an act of censorship, and we all know that Wikipedia is not censored.--Danaman5 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—the article is informative and well sourced. We can't delete criticism away, nor should we want to. That's what this really is about, isn't it? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons above 4kinnel 23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wow—there have been a lot of great points raised here. As for the article....ughh...well, the article meets the appropriate notability guidelines. There are times that exist in which such guidelines can be ignored, but I have not found any compelling reasons to do so. Everything is in order here. Big Jimbo hasn't said anything regarding this and WP:BLP (which, given the circumstances, is surprising) and he even expressed explicitly that he holds no interest in the article. I don't believe that anyone other than Jimbo and ArbCom have the power to express "special treatment" for something which is such a big deal. I agree that Brandt's methods of attacking wikipedia are harming certain editors. However, this is not, in my mind, enough reason to delete an article, or even censor out certain parts. Keep it all. Ikiroid 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- No reason to delete at all, person meets WP:BIO criteria, whether its existence causes controversy or the subject claims he wants it deleted or not shouldn't enter into it. DreamGuy 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the notable content can be adequately covered in the individual Brandt related articles. I like the solution of turning this page basically into a dab page for those articles. It seems to me that this is an excellent compromise. It serves the purpose of providing coverage of notable information while respecting the wishes of the peoryrson and serving the best interest of the project. Clearly, this article is a distraction.--Kubigula 06:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep The wishes of a person or subject are quite irrelevant if there are reliable, attributable sources cited for the material included in the article. If the information concords with Wikipedia's policy, there is quite frankly no other relevant concern. No other argument has been raised to counteract this, as the only serious one (the borderline BIO bit) has been knocked over recently and righly so. The only criterion is reliable, non-trivial coverage and more than incidental coverage etc as set out in policies; on that basis, this article must remain. SM247 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Brandt meets the primary notability criterion of WP:BIO; he has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, many of which are quoted in the article. As all controversial statements are clearly sourced, this article doesn't violate WP:BLP either. To be honest, this whole 13-nomination farce has been an utter waste of everyone's time; Brandt simply doesn't have the right to say whether or not he should have an article on Wikipedia, when he clearly meets notability guidelines. Walton_monarchist89 09:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not obliged to carry this article on a person of very minor significance, and its existence is a threat to the stability of Wikipedia and soaks up lots of administrator time unnecessarily. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

now, ain't that shocking ... Daniel Brandt is a threat to Wikipedia ... common now Alf^Photoman 15:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think that a more accurate statement would be that the huge number of AfDs forced upon this article soak up a lot of administrator (and editor) time unnecessarily. The entry itself is quite innocent of any wrongdoing. I'm still searching this page in vain for a clearly violated policy that would justify a deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment / Sermon / Rambling thoughts - I haven't really been paying attention to this thing. So this morning, I thought I would read some of the comments here. Does anyone realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? This isn't a tabloid. It isn't TV guide. It isn't Pokemon Central. It isn't a message board. Articles about topics that have little or no significance outside of Wikipedia don't belong here. I've seen repeatedly that we should keep the article because Brandt shouldn't get to decide whether or not it gets deleted. Well, he isn't. I don't give a flip what he wants - I want the article deleted because it is unencyclopedic. I've seen keep !votes arguing that it meets WP:BIO. Well, if it does, then WP:BIO needs to be changed. Heck, I meet WP:BIO, but it would be absolutely silly if a Wikipedia article were written about me - I'm a programmer at a small, unimportant company. What we should be focusing on is whether having this article makes us a better encyclopedia or does it make us a laughingstock. Is any serious scholar going to do research on Brandt? Is a student going to do a book report on a book he wrote? Will people be googling for Brandt, find that article, and decide that they want to become contributors? Is Encyclopedia Britanica going to suddenly realize that what they have been missing all these years is an article on Daniel Brandt? Good grief. Let's be an encyclopedia and clean house a little bit. --BigDT 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If WP:BIO ought to be changed, comments to that effect ought to be directed here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but is distinguished from most by the fact that it is not paper. I do not think it is reasonable to clean house based upon what the policies of Wikipedia might one day become. ◄Zahakiel► 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stong Keep - This is notable enough and has enough outside sources to keep this as a seperate complete article.--Twintone 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Since the 12th AfD vote, has anything significantly changed? It seems to me that, if Wikipedia editors were responsible for US democracy, we would still be holding re-runs of the 2000 presidential election. You can't just have a re-vote until you get the result you want. Oh wait: this is Wikipedia; you can. Carry on then! SheffieldSteel 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It meets WP:BIO, is notable enough and is sourced. Also hope this is the last deletion debate on this article. Davewild 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an issue of personal privacy and NN. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How is he is not notable? He meets WP:BIO and what personal privacy issue is there other than that he doesn't like having an article on him? It is very hard to claim that someone who has given multiple interviews (even about this article) can make any sort of privacy claim. JoshuaZ 19:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Are we a better encyclopedia for having an article about Daniel Brandt? Despite all the sources in this article, and despite all of us insiders clamoring to keep it, the vast majority of users using Wikipedia for a reference will never look up Daniel Brandt, unless it's for the noise he's made. Outside users are looking more for encyclopedic content. Someone looking up a core topic like Sugar, for example, will find an article with exactly three references and that was delisted from the Good Article list. Flour has four references. Let's do the encyclopedia a favor and delete this article, finally. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - May I politely ask what reasoning you're advancing here? It seems to me like you're saying, "Yes, we have sources, and yes 'all of us insiders' appear to be in favor of keeping it, but let's benefit Wikipedia by deleting it because most people will never search for this individual"? According to the front page, Wikipedia currently has "1,675,100 articles in English," and I guarantee you that the vast majority of users are not going to search for any one topic at any given time. Encyclopedic content is not determined by how many people we think will search, but on the validity of the information presented. ◄Zahakiel► 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Keep where it is. As someone who has been cited by the New York Times (paper of record) on multiple occasions concerning his activist/intelligence gathering work, he's notable and meets criteria for inclusion. Whether it should just be merged into a different article remains to be seen. --Ali'i 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Keep. Meets WP:BIO. Nothing has really changed since the last nomination. Said thirteen times to attempt to make a point about this nomination. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Philosophical rambling - The question most relevant here, even more than WP:N, seems to be philosophical regarding the extent to which Wikipedians go, or allow Wikipedia(ns) to go, to further the goals of Wikipedia. According to WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." Noting that Wikipedia has already lost one respected contributor and admin due to this article and had another admin caught in scandal because he was trying to prevent a similar situation per Derex above, the possible desysopping of two admins in a silly and preventable wheel war, and the above statement of Wikipedia policy, I must ask, how far is too far? Does the goal of building "a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge" (WP:ENC) justify the means Wikipedia(ns) take to get there? This isn't likely to ever become an official policy on Wikipedia, but rather, it is a moral consideration that, at least, each user must make on their own, weighing the importance of the completeness of Wikipedia against the value of protecting members of the Wikipedia community. Certainly, this sort of discussion wouldn't be taking place if this article were about George W. Bush, as others have alluded to. Is this article important enough to risk losing members of the Wikipedia community in maintaining its presence? Does WP:NOT#CENSOR apply? Is censorship ever appropriate on Wikipedia? (Apparently to avoid law suits, it is.) I don't know. Whatever the consensus of Wikipedia seems to be, I recommend that the decision be locked for a certain length of time to allow things to settle down, or else this article will be immediately restored/put up for deletion again, and that would be silly. shoy 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is a shame if warring over this article has cost the project a few contributors. But there are 3,771,025 ... oops I mean 3,771,042 ... no um... 3,771,066 registers contributors. So actually, in the time it took to type this reply, the project has already covered those losses. The argument that this is disruptive to the community is just a fishbowl effect. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Please note also that considerations of already-lost admins amount to consideration of sunk costs; if I may quote from our article: "Economics proposes that a rational actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be assessing a decision exclusively on its own." --Gwern (contribs) 23:05 7 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment - The fact that Wikipedia has many contributors shouldn't make individuals less important. I feel that it is important to remember that each user name here represents a real person, which is why I am mildly surprised by the analogy to economics. Wikipedia's community should be more like a company's staff list than its checkbook: money is money, no matter how you get it. But people are unique, and should be treated as more than just numbers. Just something to remember when aboard the USS Internets, sometimes the "real person" aspect gets lost. shoy 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, we're all ants even when we are offline. But hey, nice rubbing antennae with ya! -- Kendrick7^talk 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per ALYSSA MILANO v. EIGHT BALL INC. [12] - privacy trumps notability. Leave the man alone. --CastAStone|^(talk) 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, and how are the personality rights of a self-promoter affected if you have an article about him ? Just a question as to the relevance of the above.... Alf^Photoman 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This seems to be a claim that we are legally not allowed to have this article- this is ridiculous- if there were any legal problem you don't think Brandt wouldn't have sued us already. Also, read WP:LEGAL. Finally, can you explain how we have in any way done anything that was done in Eight Ball? The matter there if you recall was publishing digitally altered nude pictures oof Milano. Now, given that, Milano claimed that her copyright had been infringed, her privacy violated , her right of publicity misappropriated, and that she had been placed in a false light. Now, if you could show how any of those have plausibly happened you mgiht, maybe have a point. None of those have occurred with Brandt and so this argument lacks any water. JoshuaZ 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, thank you, but I understood that much after reading the plaintiffs case, what I wanted to know of CastAStone if he thinks that the average wikipedian is stupid enough not to see through this shystering maneuver Alf^Photoman 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry if that wasn't clear, my comment was directed at CastA, not you. JoshuaZ 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Must I even point out WP:AGF? Shystering? I think the average Wikipedian is Stupid? JoshuaZ, I believe the case is relevant: the final ruling in the case was not on whether the pictures were altered (some were, some were not) or whether or not they were copyright violations (most were, some weren't but Milano herself held none of the copyrights and thus had no standing); the ruling was whether the damage to her image done by the violating of her right to privacy was worth censoring the photos for. That and that alone was what the case was ruled on. My understanding is that Mr. Brandt is concerned about his reputation being damaged by the work of vandals to the web page. This to me is a relevant case. In light of the Essjay scandal, I do feel I need to admit I am not a lawyer. And Alf, I am a long standing contributer to the project since September 2005, [13] not a Brandt troll, and I wish you would Assume Good Faith as I will do for you. --CastAStone|^(talk) 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to be blunt, I don't think an article about someone that is based on easily accessible published sources is at all in the same category as naked pictures of a person. I'd be very surprised if you could find a court that saw them as at all similar. JoshuaZ 08:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I did not assume good faith I would not bother to engage in a discussion with you, I can be much blunter than I have above. I am not a lawyer either and all I really know about law is that what the average journalists knows. That Mr. Brandt's page gets vandalized is hardly an object of this discussion but if we should have a page at all. Pages that are vandalized can be protected or semi-protected by any administrator and/or sysops. That ball is in their court and if the page is not protected than we should ask them why not. As for Mr. Brandt, being in the lime light by his own doing, I hardly can understand why he starts crying foul when the inconveniences of notability hit him. That is part of the I-am-notable game. If he were more notable a Wikipedia article would be the least of his worries Alf^Photoman 14:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Thus, the topic meets WP:N. COMMENTS: (i) Denny and Jokestress both have posts well worth reading. (ii) Mr. Brandt's interactions with Google were well publicized as early as March 2003. The published source information on Mr. Brandt's interactions with Google were sufficient to meet WP:N as early as the year 2003. The Wikipedia and Daniel Brandt news articles did not begin until around June 2004. The Daniel Brandt article was created on September 28, 2005. The Wikipedia Daniel Brandt article itself did not make the Daniel Brandt topic Wikipedia-notable (which was a concern of mine that I resolved with some research). The first AfD ended on November 7, 2005 (Keep results). The topic has not fallen below the WP:N standards since that time and I do not think that this topic could be deleted under AfD. However, I would not oppose deletion under a different process if there were another process available (or even newly created) to address many of the above concerns. There also may be different processes to stub the article and delete the history/talk page of the article to start fresh. I do not believe that AfD is the place to achieve these, however. -- Jreferee 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Primarily because Mr. Brandt, for better or worse is a significant part of Wikipedia's history and development. I feel it is important that new comers like myself have easy access to information regarding all of the controversial elements of Wikipedia's hist. It is of significant value in trying to understand the complex critter that the Wikipedia community has become. It is extremely important that Wikipedia not try to make criticism of Wikipedia go away by deleting articles about people that are critical of Wikipedia. --Rogsmart 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd really like to see this deleted. I don't like to give any more attention then necessary to critics... but in the end Daniel Brandt satisfies not only the letter of our notability guidelines but the spirit as well. We want to write articles on people that reliable and non-trivial information information can be obtained. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (Note to closing admin. Bolded text course of action intentionally omitted by J.S. -- Jreferee 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
• Merge or Delete. He's not that notable and most of the references talk about him the context of his organizations,. We should just compromise start a "Wikipedia Watch" and merge whatever information needed information back into that. This whole fiasco reminds of the GNAA article. Chevinki 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:BIO is a trivially easy bar to cross, so that alone won't do. Insofar as (the indubitably self-promoting, petty, and vindictive, but useful) Mr Brandt gets coverage, it seems to derive from Google Watch. We have an article on that already. That Brandt is important to Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant: WP:COI would make interesting reading in that respect. No self-referential wankery in articlespace please, and that includes all of the "notable wikipedians". Vanity, thy name is Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 'scuse me, but how is that self-projector important to Wikipedia? Alf^Photoman 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are people here saying he is. Since there are far too many people here for an ordinary AFD on a self-publicising book-indexer, just like there were at DRV, I'm thinking that in some sense they're right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, but that never helped. Wikipedia and Google are important to him, because without them and us he would just be another non-notable. Alf^Photoman 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He may be notable, but he clearly doesn't want his bio on Wikipedia. Let's just delete it and be done with this whole mess. If it's kept, it will just be nominated again...and again...and again... --clpo13 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that notable people can have their bio removed upon request? (Incidentally, I feel that this AfD, whatever the outcome, will be considered the definitive decision for a long while.) Trebor 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be what I'm saying. I can see how it could be considered censorship, but it really should be a person's choice whether or not their information is presented in an online encyclopedia, especially if they aren't a public individual. They should have the ability to opt-out. --clpo13 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There must surely be a point where notability is more important than personal request. Tony Blair must get an article regardless of his personal wishes. Where do we draw the line? Trebor 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflating wikt:notable and WP:BIO Notable is very unhelpful. Can [Nn]otable people be removed if they so wish? If notable, never. If Notable, but not notable, perhaps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have lost me there. If I'm following you correctly though: we use our guidelines to determine what is notable, not our personal interpretation of the dictionary definition. "Notability" has unfortunately become a very misunderstood term. Trebor 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Our guidelines are very lax, and confer supposed notability on vast numbers of unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content (to steal the wording of WP:CSD A7), merely because they happen or happened to be active in a period when there was a surfeit of news reporting. Newspapers are full of banal reporting on unremarkable things: today's headlines, tomorrow's chip wrapper. My view is that no encyclopedia would include Brandt, and neither should we. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more of an argument that you don't like our notability standards. I will therefore note that I doubt any serious encyclopedia has an article about Kent Hovind or many other people here. Please don't apply a different standard in this case simply because it is Daniel Brandt. And if you think there is something wrong with WP:BIO then please get a consensus on WP:BIO and then come back here. JoshuaZ 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BIO is a guideline. I base my view on NOT, which says "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia". I asked myself, and the answer came back "nothing". It's conceivable that Hovind might be in a very comprehensive biographical encyclopedia, but see WP:INN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-public figures deserve a reasonable degree of respect for their privacy. Wikipedia is far too often on the wrong side of this line. I think the Daniel Brandt article is one example of this. Wikipedia will not be any less relavent without an article on Daniel Brandt. Kaldari 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you say more about why you think he's not a Public_figure? He seems to qualify to me, in that he has set up and speaks for organizations whose entire purpose appears to be to draw the public interest. William Pietri 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, now lets be serious for a moment, here we have a guy that happily burps into every microphone a reporter puts in front of his nose and you claim he is not a public figure, so what is he then? Alf photoman 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep eveything in the article that is sourced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable. However, we really need to be careful about facts and sources in this article. Gutworth 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per lots of sane arguments above. FCYTravis 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 9

• Strong keep. The is no general right for anybody to take unwanted content down, on the web as well as in any other media. That's called freedom of speech. The few exceptions include privacy rights, libel, and wrong facts. The very same philosophy is in place for Wikipedia. The article is only about the public life of Daniel Brandt and does clearly not violate any privacy rights. There can also be no question that he is notable by any reasonable definition (despite some people above trying to downplay his notability or trying to raise our notability requirements). There must not be a precedence for such external censorship, the result would be a landslide of similar attempts that would fundamentally compromise our goals and our project. Cacycle 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is not breaking any of wikipedia's policies, and has had wide and significant media coverage. And additionally lets hope for some similar verdict like with Brian Peppers that this can not be re-visted again until another year has passed, then maybe we can have a 14th AfD!! Mathmo ^Talk 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly, strictly according to policy this article can be kept (it is on a notable, verifiable subject, is not POV, and contains no original research). There are then two issues:
  1. Is the article causing more trouble than it's worth?
  2. Should the wishes of the subject be considered?

The answer to question 1 is unclear, but I would like to point out that this discussion, and previous discussions, have remained civil. The presence of discussions is not a problem, but a sign of a healthy community. Therefore, it seems like the article is not really causing much trouble. As for Mr. Brandt's so-called trolling, he would likely persist if the article is deleted, as well as if it is kept. The answer to question 2 is simple: if Mr. Brandt wants to keep certain facts private, he should not release them to the public. If Mr. Brandt wants to keep all facts about his existence public, he should not be a public figure. We will remove false information, but we will not remove inconvenient truths. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable web critics.--Vsion 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per many sensible people above, and move on. Shanes 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Where specificly? I've failed to see any reasons that should cause this article to be deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 06:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "waste of time" (as you called it in the edit summary when you voted) is hardly a good reason to delete an article that's otherwise a valid topic. Far more time has been wasted dealing with vandalism related to George W. Bush, I'm sure, but it wouldn't make sense to delete it on that basis. Bryan Derksen 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • perhaps take action on the people who waste our time by disrupting on articles, rather than waste our time fighting over the articles themselves... - Denny 08:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For those arguing that his right to be removed shouldn't be honored, what about the John Byrne case? Many of his controversial and inflammatory statements are pretty well-sourced but were removed when he made noise. I guess I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. Chevinki 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merger (Technically a 'Split'?) It is simple enough to move all of his content into the many, many pages about his 'work' about google and wikipedia. The guy himself isn't very astounding and only through circular logic does he pass WP:BIO. He criticizes wiki... it gets published by people who don't like wiki, he becomes more notable. It's rather circular and all of his 'important' critiques are found many places outside of his own article. MrMacMan 10:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as the article could easily be abused as a forum to defame a critic of Wikipedia. The number of comments here show that this article is taking up too much time of editors. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete or stubify. Daniel Brandt is not notable. His activism is. Improve articles like Public Information Research, Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, and so on, but this one needs to go. I wouldn't mind it being made into a sort of soft multi-redirect. --MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my vote per JoshuaZ below, and apologize to the community for acting without sufficient research.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting distinction. Is a person inherently notable, or is it just their actions that are? How do you separate that? Trebor 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just for one instance that comes to mind, the article Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) got changed to Essjay controversy because it was argued that the person per se — despite getting a higher level of world press coverage in a week than DB has gotten in his lifetime — was not really notable enough for a personal biography, but only his alleged actions and the incidents involving them. Don de la Muncha 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Intense but short term publicity isnt a sign of notability in the way that consistent lower level publicity is, SqueakBox 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We know very little about Daniel Brandt himself. We lack reliable sources on his date of birth, place of birth, his religion, his wife (supposing he has one, we don't even know), his children (supposing he has any, we don't even know), and we have no picture, nor do we have a link to a picture. The article does not contain a biographical section, as we have little or no such information. This should come as no surprise, as Daniel Brandt himself is not notable, only some of his brief 15 minutes of fame have any relevance.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We dont need to know this type of info about Brandt and IMO it is much better that we dont include any of these private deatails given that Brandt has stated he wouldnt want such info here. On the other hand his public persona, whether as draft resister or opponent of Google and Wikipedia, is entirely public, notable and appropriate for an article here, SqueakBox 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments to Muncha and Fish- Regarding Essjay another consideration is that all the information was kept still in one location and Essjay redirects to that so the exact article title isn't as important. Fish, repeated sets of 15 minutes of fame all in a related set of topics would I think by any reasonable standard constitute notability. Furthermore, Brandt in fact gets continuous low level coverage as can be verified by looking at the dates on the sources cited in the article. JoshuaZ 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Gwen Gale 14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. (1) He is notable (meets WP:BIO etc.), and so the information in him should be in Wikipedia somewhere. (2) Merging with Google Watch is an ok idea, but he also runs other websites and is (arguably) notable in his own right, therefore moving the inforamation to an article on one of his websites may be confusing for anyone looking for information on the man himself. Waggers 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple non-trivial published pieces about both Brandt for himself and Brandt as google-watch et al seems to preclude the need to merge, and, while keeping within WP:BLP, there seems no need to get rid of it, as well as actual harm from deleting it if someone comes here to research Privacy and the activists in the movement -M^ask 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep he is the international media’s go-to-guy for an anti-Wikipedia perspective (and he is cited by many reliable sources on the Essjay controversy) if his page is deleted wikipedians who use wikipedia as a source of information will have to go elsewhere, which would prove one of his points, that wikipedia has little value as a source of information.--Wowaconia 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me you want it kept just to spite one of his points. There's plently of rational reasons to keep it if that's your argument. Indiawilliams 03:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe what the user is trying to say is that if we did in fact delete this, then Brandt's criticisms would be accurate. These criticisms would be very bad if true, and it is more out of rhetorical effect or irony to note that Brandt is the one making them. JoshuaZ 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Somewhat disruptive to the project on several levels. Arguably meets WP:BIO and WP:N, as Denny admirably researched above, but these are only guidelines, and are not set in stone. There should always be room for flexibility. The bottom line is that this article is about someone who is only marginally notable (and in a profession which generally isn't in the public eye) , and it is my personal opinion that the disruption of having this article outweighs any good that may have come by having it in the first place. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment You don't explain at all how this is disruptive. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, by now it's pretty self-evident. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't that's my point. This is a fish bowl effect. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are you answering your own question? I don't understand what you are calling a fish bowl. I count half a dozen things tied to this article that could be interpreted as a fish bowl effect. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is "self evident". A goldfish splashes in his bowl and thinks he is disrupting the whole ocean. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I understand the fish bowl effect as a change in procedure because of perpetual observation, like humans watching a fish through the bowl. We are apparently looking at two different fish ;-) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Doc Glasgow. Skult of Caro (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I simply don't understand why we are having an AfD on a figure who obviously meets the standard criteria for WP:BIO. A casual search of the www.nytimes.com shows at least [14], [15], and this one from 1987, not to mention numerous other appropriate sources in the article. This individual has the sources, there simply should not be a question. It doesn't matter whether we like him or not. Doubtless we'll have to word and source the article carefully given that he is notable in part for disagreements with Wikipedia, but people here are capable of writing careful articles. --Shirahadasha 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Abu ali — Canderous Ordo 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per multiple mentions in The New York Times and other high-profile media, per U.S. v. Brandt, his involvement in Seigenthalergate and the Fuzzy Zoeller incident, and for Google Watch, Public Information Research, and the CIA cookies thing. I think this exemplifies the differences between notability and importance. Sure, the average person hasn't heard of him, but that is the norm for Wikipedia biographies. However, Brandt is one of the most powerful individuals (and influential, based on a casual analysis of this page) on the internet today and will likely continue sniping from the sidelines of every major internet scandal from here to doomsday, steadily clamoring for the impunity associated with being a so-called "private person". What a joke... — CharlotteWebb 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• And the Essjay scandal too... whenever some blowup to do with Wikipedia (and probably Google too) gets in the news, you can count on Brandt getting into the middle of it, doing some pretty thorough research to uncover personal information regarding the people involved. Then he insists his own privacy be preserved nevertheless. *Dan T.* 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that he uncovers the identity of others should have nothing to do with whether there should be an article about him, the only reason for that should be that he is a public person by own doing and that he is notable due to his activism Alf^Photoman 20:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Then he insists his own privacy be preserved nevertheless" (Dtobias, 09 Mar 2007). — Gosh, who does that remind me of? Just about everybody here! One of the lessons that we should learn from Essjay is that "You Too Could Oneday Be A Notable". Don de la Muncha 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Which is why we should start threading carefully and over the sidewalk (smirk) Alf^Photoman 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• It's interesting to note that Don de la Muncha's first entry into this deletion discussion was only his 8th edit on Wikipedia, and two of the earlier edits were to his user and user talk pages; he made only 5 article-space edits, over a one-month period, before jumping into this debate. A large portion of his subsequent edit history has consisted of further comments on this page. He has very little track record as an actual Wikipedia editor. *Dan T.* 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/Mock I think it's very POV that we have to either vote Keep or Delete. I will buy into the group think and say we should Delete, because I don't want to give anyone that gave EssJay a hard time any sort of recognition. But really, I think the answer should be Keep, but Mock, much like the Colbert, chicken article 71.39.78.68 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you are not advocating institutionalized vandalism Alf^Photoman 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• If vandals were to be institutionalized, that would cut down on vandalism (assuming the asylum didn't have Internet access for its inmates). *Dan T.* 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I meant def 1. (WEBSTERS): to make or give character of an institution (smirk) Alf^Photoman 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:ElinorD Αργυριου (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He is notable for defaming Essjay. The term tattletale is in order.Bakaman 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Essjay defamed himself. --Action Jackson IV 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable person. I also agree, Essjay defamed himself. Malamockq 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - His role in the creation of Google Watch is enough to satisfy any notability requirements. It's a very well known website. A Google search for the phrase "google watch" returns 813,000 pages. For comparison I include a list of some articles currently mentioned on Wikipedia's front page:

Joss Whedon - 1,450,000
Mutant Enemy - 361,000
Buffy Anne Summers - 41,300
Sarah Michelle Gellar - 2,070,000
Warner Brothers Network - 15,900
TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time - 89
New Orleans Mint 21,900
chocolate box art - 4,800
Paul Goma - 91,400
Barnum Museum - 45,500
Portland Brownstone Quarries - 847
brownstone - 2,100,000
scuba diving - 1,600,000
Gnanendramohan Tagore - 23
Nan Kelley - 1,360
Saurav Ganguly - 123,000
Sinn Féin - 1,390,000
direct rule - 320,000
Lewis "Scooter" Libby - 1,540,000
Lewis Libby - 904,000
Andrus Ansip - 975,000
Nørrebro - 2,310,000
First Punic War - 83,800
Louis Philippe - 1,230,000
Fulgencio Batista - 392,000
coup d'état - 1,710,000

Google Watch - 813,000
Daniel Brandt - 69,800

I know I am comparing results for article subjects with a result for Google Watch and not Daniel Brandt himself but as a person who started and runs the organization he deserves to have an article. Also Wikipedia should err on the side of keeping the article as this is a very obvious attempt at may be seen as censorship by those who took offense to his criticism of Wikipedia or his involvment in the Essjay incident. Few deletion attempts get this many votes, and if they do it's always because the voters feel strongly about the issue for personal or ideological reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voodoo (talk• contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Many problems with the above: first, google hits are no way an indication of notability. Second, a large number of the google hits given are not about "Google Watch". Third, internet-based events always have a high Cruft multiplier. Fourth, at best this would be an argument for having a mention of who he was on the Google Watch article (starting something notable doesn't make someone notable). Fifth, the current Brandt matter occured before the Essjay matter. Sixth, Brandt does not want an article here, so if people are reacting to him in any way, it is reacting to say keep to annoy him- people who are arguing for deletion are not doing so out of "offense." JoshuaZ 03:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you search for "google watch" in quotes (phrase search) the ovewhelming majority of the available results are reffering to the website. Google hits are an indication of notability (though obviously not an exact measurment). People are interested enough to write and comment about Google Watch. Currently the majority of english speakers are Internet users. Even if you take into account the fact that people who participate in content creation on the Internet are more likely to write about Google Watch, this still means that other Internet users are reading about it. I changed my comment about the motivation of those who vote but still feel that this plays a role. Voodoo 04:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People are interested enough to write and comment about many things. They have nothing to do with whether we have reliable sources that talk about something, and actually I don't think you understand how incredibly high the cruft multiplier is for internet based stuff. To use the ubiquitous example, I get over 100,000 hits for "Brian Peppers" even though there is not a single usable source about him (we have only one source of questionable reliability). However, the major talmudic figure Honi HaM'agel has many fewer hits, even when we use a large number of variations of the name. Honi HaM'agel- 98 hits, Choni HaM'agel- 80 hits, Choni HaMagel - 124 hits, Honi HaMagel - 20 hits, Honi Circle-drawer - wow a whopping 1600 hits, slightly over 1% of "Brian Peppers"! Choni Circle-drawer - 248 hits. So in total we have Choni Hamagel, a figure who shows up in many Talmudic stories, even when using all imaginable variations of his name having in total at most (never mind the overlapping hits) less than 1/50th the number of hits as an internet phenomenon dedicated to a man who had the misfortune of being accused of a crime and having an odd looking picture. JoshuaZ 04:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very true, and why Ghits aren't a particularly great delete/keep rationale. But a lot of perfectly reliable sources have been presented about Brandt, unlike the case of Peppers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I argued for keeping this way above in section 1. But I'd still like if people weren't arguing for keeping based on bad reasoning. JoshuaZ 04:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you link to a page about Wikipedia policy on attribution, which is different from notability so is off topic for this discussion. Second, your example proves absolutly nothing other than the fact that Brian Peppers is far better known than Honi HaM'agel. You may think the latter is more notable, but this either comes from your personal interests or elitism, because of which you believe that ancient writers of religious texts are more important than 'trivial' internet phenomena. I don't share that particular view. I do realize, however, that basing my opinion about notability on my personal interests would be wrong, so instead I try to estimate the number of people interested in the subject. Ghits are a pretty good indicator of that, even if there are exceptions (such as self-published material.) Assuming then that Ghits tell you something about the interests of internet users, the only issue mentioned on the cruft multiplier page that remains is whether this interest is shared by the general population. I have already addressed this when I wrote that most english speakers are internet users. Yes, internet issues are more important to internet users, but we are talking about a sample that by now exceeds 60 or 70 percent of the population. Brian Peppers is better known than Hani HaM'agel to the general public because, increasingly, internet culture is popular culture. If instead of the phonomenal growth in internet adoption we had similar growth in the number of Talmud readers maybe the opposite would be true. (BTW, I do think other criteria besides interest should be used in determining notability - such as possible future concequences or importance to the functioning of society - which make subjects in the esotheric fields such as theoretical physics or economics notable, but these do not need to be considered when there is sufficient interest in the subject.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voodoo (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok, the relevant pages are WP:BIO and WP:N, not WP:LETSSEEHOWMANYHITSIGETONGOOGLE. In any event, all the named notability criterion you have given like "possible future concequences or importance to the functioning of society" are extremely subjecting, which is why we don't use them. Furthermore, you fail to understand that even if a large number of people are using the internet, it only takes on the internet a small number of internet-obsessed people who spend all their time on the net to give something like Peppers a large number of hits. The bottom line is that if something is notable we will have reliable third party sources that talk about it. If not, there isn't much we can say about it even if you could make an argument that in some subjective sense the issue in question is notable. Brandt is notable because we have many indepedent, non-trivial, reliable sources about him, not because his website happens to get many google hits. JoshuaZ 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There's no question that this fulfills WP:BIO. Like any other article, we can handle WP:NPOV as we go along. WP:ATT is well taken care of. From a policy point of view, there's no reason not to have this article. There's still a question of whether there are any positive reasons to have the article. Because Brandt is a deliberately public figure, the answer is yes. He ends up in newspapers and magazines, and when he does, readers come to Wikipedia to learn more about him. Wikipedia is an ideal place to gather sources and build a NPOV article about the man, just as for any other topic. The goal of Wikipedia is to be a useful repository of free information, and this article helps us fulfill that goal. There are arguments against the article, not grounded in policy but worth answering. I believe they have already been answered. I found the following, further up the page:

  From what I can tell the arguments for deletion are: He doesn't want it. Although I feel for subjects in this position, I think it has to be irrelevant to Wikipedia. He (or his field) are not sufficiently notable. This is reasonable, but I think notability is more cause for inclusion than exclusion. Plus, he has been noted, which I take as a good proxy for notable. He deserves his privacy. That would work for me for a private citizen, but Brandt is an intentionally public figure. We're only doing this out of spite. I don't have anything against him, so that's not my motivation. There is another page with this information. That's great, but I don't see that as a reason to delete this. This article is too much trouble. I think that would be a terrible precedent, and would mean we could be harrassed into deleting things that we otherwise would keep. On the keep side, it seems like we have plenty of material and that the article meets core policies like WP:ATT and WP:BLP. Further, it fits my personal criterion of utility: people may see his name somewhere and say, "Who is this Brandt guy the paper is quoting?" And anytime people have a reasonable question, I think we should have an easy-to-find factual answer for them. ... Deleting material based on personal preference inevitably skews our contents. We have a responsibility to our readers to be a neutral repository of factual information. Per WP:ATT, we don't include anything that people can't find out elsewhere, so we're not exposing anything that isn't already public. I agree absolutely that we should respect our subjects, and that we should edit with compassion and taste. I think WP:BLP is a good example of that. But that's different than respecting their wishes. ... Sorry for replying to myself, but apparently my reply to the "too much trouble" argument wasn't explicit enough. First, I feel like having a precedent like this would be terrible, as I expect a lot of articles could be considered too much trouble. Second, having that precedent gives people incentive to create trouble around articles they would like removed. Third, deleting things we would otherwise keep increases systemic bias, this time in the case of favoring non-controversial material. Thanks for reading, William Pietri 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Is there anything that does not address? — coelacan — 08:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wish we could see some serious discussion re: William Pietri's comments above; I personally found them very convincing but those arguing for deletion have, IMO, made few efforts to respond to William's arguments. Cartwarmark 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - at this point, nobody really cares about my specific reasons, but basically because I'm uncomfortable with the Wiki-community kicking out someone whose notability is far greater than many other unchallenged bios on the site but who attracts much attention through criticizing the site we're deciding if he should be mentioned on. The article, sadly, will require far more attention to POV and vandal stuff than others less notable because of the nature of his notability, but that's the price a project like this has to pay if it wants to extend itself further than the baliwick of print encyclopedias. dharmabum 09:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 10

Gistification, the Next Day. A few residual thoughts. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1. All this talk of goldfishes on the sidewalk is baffling to the uninitiated, but I hesitate to bog down discussion any further by stopping to ask what it means, so maybe some nice person could put a note on my talk page. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Another thing that baffles me is the continuing mention of personal data and personal level of expertise, since I've always heard that Wikipedia Ways are blind to such personal incidentals. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
3. The discussion has included a lot of speculation on Daniel Brandt's motives, and even though I'm still puzzling over the pertinence of all that, I might as well chime in and share my own thoughts about it. From what I've read here and there, I'm guessing that his motives are twofold — call them "ambivalent", "conflicted", or "duplicitous" according to your taste, but here is how I see it:
   1. Speculation 1. On the one hand, he is trying to educate Wikipedia Editors about the Rules of Reality, which all of us eventually find out overrule the Rules of Wikipedia. This is so because Wikipedia is really just a tiny part of Reality at Large, and not an isolated bubble world. This is, incidentally, one of the lessons that Wikipedia Editors should also be learning from the ongoing Essjay incident. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
   2. Speculation 2. On the other hand, he is trying to lay a trap for those Wikipedia Participants (Jimbo Wales, Administrators, Editors, and so on) who fail to learn the first lesson. If he ever does follow through on suing Wikipedia Participants, either collectively or individually, he will need to do a couple of things to reinforce his case:
      1. Recollection 1. Show that he has exhausted all other means at his disposal to get Managers and Users of Wikipedia to cease and desist whatever the heck he says they are doing wrong. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      2. Recollection 2. Show that there is a large reservoir of malicious intent among whatever set of Managers and Users of Wikipedia that he elects to name in the prospective suit. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
4. As always, I am neither barrister nor solicitor, I am merely repeating what Daniel Brandt himself has said in various places. But I think that Wikipedia Editors need to bear all of these considerations in mind as they conduct their research into Daniel Brandt's biography, and in the things they utter in these brands of editorial proceedings. Don de la Muncha 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

can't fail to notice that for not being a barrister or solicitor (lawyer in American English) you sure try to do a lot of shystering (which I want to be understood as : attempt of intimidation by citing irrelevant cases, laws or precedents) Alf^Photoman 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had to look that one up, and some of what it said wasn't very nice, so I'm sure that you didn't really mean all that — apparently we are, unwittingly for some us, still picking on this New York lawyer from the 1840s, name of Scheuster. Now that's Notability for you! But all I did was to mention two things that Daniel Brandt has said in public that he needs for his future court battle. And what I'm saying is, "Don't give him that". Don de la Muncha 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I know about Scheuster (though some sources say his real name was Schuster), and I am sorry but the guy made his own name by pulling from the bottom of the trick chest, so if his (Americanized name) still stands for slightly less than ethical law practice I cannot help it. The point is, no matter where, as a public figure Brandt does not have a foot to stand on when it comes to have his article deleted. He might be able to sue those who vandalized the article and/or added patently false content with intend of defaming, and I believe that Wikipedia should aid in as far as possible to identify this person (or persons). But that is as far as it goes. His best chance would be a law suit in France, but French Wikipedia does not have an article about him, yet... Alf^Photoman 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt asserting that Wikipedia is doing something wrong and should cease and desist is hardly the same thing as this actually being true. *Dan T.* 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. And we need to be neutral about this. As Brandt deliberately makes himself a public figure, it is reasonable to expect that people who read about him in a newspaper article will come to Wikipedia looking for more information about him. Deleting the article, then, would not only do our readers a disservice, but the practice would encourage a systemic bias toward non-controversial subject matter, and/or away from topics in which certain people give us trouble. The only fair thing to do is to treat him as though he's had no interaction here, and made no trouble here. Ask: would this level of media coverage suggest notability if he were a dairy farmer? — coelacan — 18:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And, regarding Brandt supposedly educating Wikipedians in the "rules of reality"... well, while it's true that we editors sometimes seem to have our own wacky version of reality that's pretty peculiar from the standpoint of the rest of the world, I'm not so sure that Brandt's personal "reality" is necessarily any "realer" either. *Dan T.* 21:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may be as nasty as I can be, to try to have his face shown on every TV channel, to call every reporter in the country to give his version of the story and then claiming not to be a public person demonstrates a loss of reality Alf^Photoman 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• From some of the remarks that ensued, if you'll excuse the expression, I see that I should have drawn a bolder line between my rather imaginative speculations on Brandt's motives and my best recollections of the things that Brandt has actually said. I have gone back and marked these accordingly. I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted. Don de la Muncha 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain — MichaelLinnear 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I haven't encountered any argument here or in the DRV that I've found convincing. Deleting the article will allow us to "move on?" It seems to me that a great deal of the problems are created by the unwillingness to accept the community's repeated verdict rather than the article itself. In fact, until the last few weeks, I thought this was a long-settled question and wasn't aware that there was any serious sentiment for deleting his entry. Brandt doesn't want it? We can't give subjects veto power over their articles. Non-notable or marginally notable? Any standard he would flunk has been shown to be considerably more deletionist than the community consensus. BLP? Everything looks solidly sourced to me, and no one points to specific problems. (Admittedly, I find the suggestion that Brandt's bad blood with Google stems from low rankings for NameBase a little fishy. In my Nicaragua-related searches, NameBase seems to come up fairly high.) Privacy? The article seems clearly focused on his public career. The price of keeping the article is too high? Frankly, admins like NSLE and Essjay are responsible for their own problems. Also, NSLE and Yanksox ran into trouble by giving the article special treatment, which is all the more reason to treat it like a regular article. Merge or redirect? He has been involved in too many different things for a clear redirect target. And for the same reason, an individual who has been involved with SDS, NameBase, Public Information Research, NSA cookies, Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, John Siegenthaler, and the Essjay controversy needs an article of his own which shows how his lifelong activism fits together. It can't properly be assessed when decontextualized into a half-dozen discrete articles. Policy, consensus, and common sense all say keep. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The only valid argument I see from the delete voters is that the existence of this article causes us more trouble than it is worth. However, I see no reason to believe that the trouble will end if we delete the article. Daniel Brandt is out to cause us trouble any way he can. If we keep the article, we give him attention, but if we delete the article he will only crow about his victory. In this situation I believe we should stick to our core principles, all of which argue for keeping the article.

For people arguing that we should respect a wish to remain private by a borderline notable subject, I refer you to Seth Finkelstein and the discussion at Talk:Seth Finkelstein/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein. Believe me, if this article gets deleted the first thing I will do is renominate that article for deletion.

Personally, my opinion is that Brandt is playing tar baby, since he just wants to generate free publicity by fighting with us. --Ideogram 03:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrmmmmm, interesting thought..."Whatever you do, don't throw me in the Wikipedia patch!" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.   Every day, articles about video games or local bands are deleted with the observation, "If a Wikipedia article would affect their exposure, then they're not notable enough to have an article, no matter how much they want one."  This is the other side of that coin: given the size and popularity of Wikipedia nowadays, if the absence of a Wikipedia article wouldn't affect someone's exposure, then they are notable enough for an article even if they don't particularly want one.  This list clearly satisfies the requirements in WP:BIO (I assume that DennyColt double-checked it so that all of us don't have to); in fact, my guess is that Brandt would be equally notable even if Wikipedia had never existed, having merely turned his attention to some other large site whose ideals conflicted with his — Internet Archive, perhaps.    Xeriphas1994 10:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed, theBainer later found three duplications (that I missed, silly error--the massive copy/pasting/resorting by date wore me down), and two URLs he had reservations, but that I think I stand by and down want to debate the nitpicking on too much. I noted the changes in a reply to myself wayyy up top. It's still a question of... 47ish versus 52ish sources that I found, over a couple hours of Google scouring various combinations of his name with other phrases. and I'll just mention that that the 52 number was literally a random number--that's just when I stopped really digging, figuring enough was enough. If someone wanted to compare my URL list vs. the remains of that one google search I linked--it was the best of the bunch--you'll find at least 10-25 more that appeared at a glance to be likely to fall into either the primary or 'cited' sections I made up. I just simply threw my hands up at that point and said, "enough". If someone has a lexus-nexus capability, you'd likely blow my counts/sources away with yet more I'd imagine... - Denny 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NOT a collection of bitter old men. Is Brandt notable? No. Maybe Google Watch is, but everyone knows why this article is still here, and the fact that people are claming it's otherwise is , quite frankly , astonishingly hypocritical. The man is a nobody. Delete the article and move on, because right now it has become a battleground. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)