Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was PENDING. This is up to nearly 200K, and arguments have long since started to repeat. I'm going to carefully review this and make a decision. Give me a little. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (10th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (11th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (12th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (6th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (7th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (8th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (9th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt 2

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

Per changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards, I request that the community expand the precedent of courtesy deletions to a slightly wider scope: these examples aren’t world leaders and both of them have expressed to me by e-mail that they would rather not be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Bear in mind that some of the information Wikipedia publishes about these people comes from small presses and date from an era before either this site or the Internet existed. To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet.

With respect for the editors who’ve contributed these pages, it’s always been my belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives.

I ask the community to replace these two pages with a template to the effect of “deleted per request of the article subject”, then Oversight the history and page protect, with equivalent action for the respective talk pages. I also ask we extend a similar courtesy in the future toward living persons who may be notable, but are neither celebrities nor criminals. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. This goes for both sides. Kwsn 06:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either way on deletion or keeping, but oversighting the entire history? That's just unbelievable. Especially on the talk page, which has contained a great deal of discussion on BLP policy. If there are specific revisions that are causing problems, then by all means zap them, that's what oversight was made for. the wub "?!" 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 1

Comment - initially posted here and moved to new page --h2g2bob (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- Daniel Brandt is notable per Wikipedia:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites much coverage of this nature in Daniel_Brandt#References. Furthermore, Daniel Brandt does not have any inherent WP:BLP problems that require deletion. It is not comprised primarily of unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, appears to be written from a neutral point of view, and does not exist primarily to provide publicity which is harmful to a living person, where the publicity was generated through no fault of the article's subject -- Daniel Brandt has intentionally become a public figure. John254 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per John254. bogdan 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as every time before. Meets every relevant standard. We're an encyclopedia, not a charity case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the obvious reasons. Shawn K. Quinn 22:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: The obvious reasons being to libel the man? I must have missed the others.--86.131.90.51 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — 86.131.90.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

• Strong keep clearly notable, and as per prior AfDs. As per John254 Daniel Brandt has intentionally become, or tried his best to become, a public figure. He doesn't then get to control what kind of publicity he gets. As long as WP:NPOV is respected, and any contentious or negative content is sourced, wikipedia should have an article on this person. DES ^(talk) 22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article subject fully merits a bio for his life's work. This is also one of our better articles, well researched and sourced. It seems bizarre to me that the article subject is complaining about public attention, while simultaneously giving interviews to major news organizations [1]. There is no time limit to "notability". --JJay 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Please let this discussion for deletion run for the full normal lengh of time. WP:BLP has changed since the last such nomination discussion and it now includes that the wishes of the subject are to be taken into account to some unspecified degree. At the very least, this discussion may illuminate "to what degree". Right-of-opt-out is an important issue and Brandt's case is sufficiently borderline that this nomination discussion will surely prove useful for at least that. Brandt has improved wikipedia by his efforts to get his article deleted even if that was not his intent. WAS 4.250 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Like most of BLP, that clause refers to the information in the article, not its notability. If Brandt spots any errors in his article, he may feel free to point them out. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the exact opposite of the truth in that the opting out clause in WP:BLP referes to the right of the subject of a wikipedia article named after them to request that the information in the article be moved to other articles and the article named after them to be deleted, redirected or otherwise made minimal in size and/or prominance on search engines. That specific opt out clause does not deal with deleting information about people from wikipedia altogether; although most of WP:BLP does just that. WAS 4.250 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• "How many times do we need to do this" Keep. The last AfD was overwhelming enough. STOP. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  I find it inappropriate that you are addressing good faith BLP concerns with assumptions of bad faith. Sean William @ 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  I would add that some of us, such as myself, have never before participated in the 500 (or whatever) previous deletion discussions.--Mantanmoreland 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Neutral (if such a position is actually logically possible). I used to be a strong-keep advocate, and still think he's sufficiently notable for it... however, after the knock-down, drag-out fight I've had with certain cliques around here over the silly "BADSITES" pseudo-policy, I've gained vastly more sympathy for the positions of Wikipedia's critics and attackers than I ever had before, a highly ironic unintended consequence of an attempt to suppress such critics. It does seem ironic, too, that the same people who are so hyper to suppress all mention of Web sites that attack Wikipedia are also clamoring to keep an article on a person who's attacking Wikipedia (and who doesn't want the article). (preceding section struck out, now that some of the leading figures in the anti-badsite-link crusade have come out in favor of deletion here, which seems a more consistent position) However, my sympathies still haven't shifted all the way to the critics, anyway; I see more to their criticisms than I used to, but I still don't buy them whole-hog, and still am not really happy with granting the principle of a "right to opt out" if you're notable. So I'll end up abstaining, but I'll do it vehemently rather than wimpily! *Dan T.* 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As a nonconfronational soul who deals extremely badly with disputes (I've made an idiot of myself in several edits regarding this article and Brandt's userpage), I would like nothing better than to grant Mr Brandt his wish because it is my (biased) belief that it is the man's current activism websites that are encyclopedically notable, not the person behind them. However, I am forced to admit defeat against the ruling consensus. Indeed, any attempt to veer away from it would certainly be met with outright ridicule and disdain. The consensus will be Keep. This AfD is pointless. I'd vote Delete merely out of contempt but I'm sure they'd retaliate against me for doing so. --Agamemnon2 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep your point has been made. switched Whsitchy 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable enough for his work regarding Google and Internet privacy and a public figure (with the full legal definition of the word). The amount of AfD's for this is like the infamous Gay Nigger Association of America debates (remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) - and that was for an article that had been debated at AFD 18 times!! I just hope this isn't debated another 4 times... that would be ridiculous. --SunStar Net ^talk 22:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Brandt is a book binder, as described by the NYTimes, not a public figure in the slightest. And you bring up the GNAA, which is interesting, because that merited deletion in the end - so why does the sheer number of AfDs justify a keep? If the prior decisions were wrong (and there are new BLP policies) then why not delete? He's not famous. He just wants out. 81.62.34.32 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - The part of BLP pointed to is severely limited and does not immediately apply here, so what policy is there for deletion? If you want to change policy, kindly do it on the poliy talk page. As for precedents, this has had 13. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep You can set your watch by AFDs on this article. - Richfife 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ,passes both WP:VERIFY AND [[WP:BIO]. Why delete? --Javit 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Consider snowballing. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Snowballing contraversial cases produces results indistinguishable from trolling. WAS 4.250 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not going to make a comment either way, the guy is notable for being interviewed in the press rather than being impartially reported by the press, he's a rent-a-gob on Wikipedia issues for newspapers. Strip away the press coverage and he's completely not notable, there's nothing he's done that would get him into the press on his own. Yeah, by the present position of our policy, he qualifies for an article, but we shouldn't be discussing whether Brandt is notable under our policy, we should be discussing whether we want Brandt and others to be notable under our policy. Nick 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Strip away the press coverage and he's completely not notable" - We generally define notability by available resources, so this is true for most articles. - ElbridgeGerry t c block

• How many times do we need to nominate shit for deletion before we give up? Good god, people! Besides, why should we delete it just because brandt wants us to? Maybe we should decide on his notability through normal, obvious channels, like I don't know, actual notability? Do we actually do that anymore? --Stephanie ^talk 23:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no we don't. Multiple newspapers and notable websites don't count anymore. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 23:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was referring to. This dance has been danced so many times before that the only thing it's accomplishing is breeding resentment between the majority and the nominators. --Agamemnon2 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Disagree completely with the nom. The current BLP guidelines gives the Wikipedia email address, address, and phone number. Someone who has problems with their coverage can take it up asking for an office decision. If the office decides against a deletion or correction on behalf of the Foundation, that should be the beginning and end of it as far as 'opt out' is concerned.

Also, there is a very practical concern: Jesus just sent me an email. He doesn't want to be in Wikipedia anymore. Can we delete Jesus Christ now? You want me to prove he sent me the email? Why should I bother, don't you trust me? In short, unless the subject contacts the Foundation, it is not only unprovable that the subject of the article has asked deletion in an email, but would rapidly lead to abuse. LaughingVulcan 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that this might not be his real wish is just silly. Daniel Brandt's direct request to have this article removed is well-documented inside and outside Wikipedia. The original request letter to Jimbo is on the wikipediawatch page, and his most recent letter to Bastique is on the article talk page. So you can forget about the "dangerous precedent". Moreover, Office has referred it back here, over and over again. AND Brandt is not Jesus Christ (not even Paul McCartney). 81.62.11.85 14:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee-whiz, I just love having my claims and perspective labeled as silly. And it's nice to know that in this case your points are correct. It would have been nicer if the original nominator had pointed this out, especially to those of us who couldn't care less about Daniel Brandt (but do care about whether or not Wikipedia remains a source of knowledge about notable living people.) It would have been nicest, given Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Congressional staffer edits and this, that there is some acknowledgement that now socks and meats will have the ability to use and abuse this new part of policy (for which this is apparently a test case of the new part of policy.) And golly gosh you're right - Brandt isn't J.C. nor P.McC. Because this little gem only works for "semi-notable" or "marginally notable" people, or "semi-pregnant" or "marginally pregnant" women. LaughingVulcan 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Response: I said your assumption that this wasn't Brandt's wish was silly, because it is a silly assumption. There are recent (and old) letters from Brandt asking that this be taken down, this is the most famous fight on Wikipedia, so for your claim to hold true, we'd have to be consider that Brandt doesn't want this AfD; absolutely silly. The corrollary is that a Brandt deletion would created a slippery slope upon which any sock or tom-dick-and-harry can request the take-down of anyperson's BLP. Again silly. Or if you prefer a more erudite description: "Logically unsound". "Teensy bit on the hysterical side". "Slippery slope down an imaginary banana skin ladder" The alternative point of view would hold that there be a rigid and intractable adherence to retention of already-published BLPs as the status quo. Justification for this being that the BLP subject requesting take-down, no matter how well documented his/her fervent desire for the deletion, no matter how assiduous their efforts, might be a sock. Again I say: silly. 81.62.34.32 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Response Boy, you sure put me in my place. As I stated above, I don't know (and don't really care) about Daniel Brandt. I would have much preferred "Logically Unsound." Or, "That turns out not to be the case." Or, "You're wrong." Or simply a reference to the article talk page, or reassurance of how the nominator came to know that information. Rather than assuming that I happened to know prior to this about the requests of Mr. Brandt, or that anyone who might claim the subject has requested deletion is so omniscient that it's impossible for abuse to occur. But I've taken these concerns where they belong. So I leave you to your universe, where everyone should know everything before daring to venture a question. LaughingVulcan 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Response Ok, I can accept that you feel attacked by the assumption that you weren't apprised of the full information, and it was not my intention to attack you. How-Ever.... you didn't ask a question here, you made a judgement on the situation (that the AfD was unwarranted) and offered a suggestion (to refer this back to Office) when office has clearly and repeatedly stated that they don't want to make that call (for the past two years, and there is a copy of the letter from Jimbo to that effect on the talk page). To be fair (to me), I could only assume someone that made as strong and strident judgements of the situation (as you did above) could only be fully informed of the situation. The nominator made links to prior AfDs, and links to the page and talk page are trivial. If you weren't fully apprised (which would have taken only a few minutes), well, honestly, on something of this level of importance (important to the BLP subject, in that the man has pursued not only 13 AfDs, but a variety of other remedies), you might well have sat on the sidelines. I'm just sayin'.  :) Also - and I don't mean to be nasty here, but if you don't care about Brandt's case (enough to read), then why bother to comment? I can see that you are expressing concern for the big picture (other cases) but if you don't have the full info on this case, then extrapolating this onwards isn't possible (i.e. you can't draw larger conclusions by skimming soundbites). And just for the record, I prefer the "Slippery slope down the imaginary banana peel ladder" . Much more fun. :) 81.62.34.32 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Response I apologize if I sounded more authoritative than I felt above. What I saw was an assertion of Brandt emailing Durova above, and my mind went, "OK, but who is Durova to assert that Durova has an email from Mr. Brandt?" And hence my concerns, and placing my foot very firmly upon the first rung. (Not to mention some real wondering how an AfD can come up 14 times in six months, before the link box was posted.) But really I meant this to mean an apology for sliding down the ladder. (And to note in passing that while I disagreed with the nom, that shouldn't be taken as a !vote towards this article either way, and that I won't be !voting on this matter on the very grounds you point out.) I've got to admit, I prefer the banana ladder myself.  ;) LaughingVulcan 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll note here that Mr. Brandt has submitted OTRS requests. Unfortunately there's been a whole lot of (what looks like to me) passing the buck where this article is concerned. So I'm willing to let the buck stop with me - or rather, I'm proposing a consistent standard that this site could use to handle this type of problem and asking the community to endorse it. I'm willing to take some flak but if this breaks the longstanding deadlock then it's worth it. Durova^Charge! 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes our guidelines. Even more notable this year due to the Essjay scandal which references demonstrate. Everything is referecned per BLP policy. Can we stop wasting our time with these deletion efforts? --Oakshade 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  Excellent Point: Which begs the question, why is Brandt famous and deserving of a BLP for discovering Essjay's details, but Essjay himself is (evidently) allowed the privacy of an opt-out of a BLP? Isn't this just a 'bit' hypocritical? Illogical? And unfair? Or does that not matter? See, this is someone's LiFe we are writing about, and the wikipedia page AfFecTs it. Therefore there are various qualificative aspects that are to be taken into consideration. i.e. this AfD is not an equation to be solved, but a philisophical case to be pondered...81.62.34.32 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Essjay controversy has a long article. If Brandt's notability were limited to a single incident, we'd write about the incident; it's not, so we write about Brandt. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Oh come come. That's not a BLP by a long shot, it is "the story of the scandal". The fact that there is no BLP there, when Essjay is a very-famous-Wikipedia-related-person speaks volumes on what can-and-cant be done to protect someone, at their behest. Essjay (RJ) is far more notable (and ultra-newsworthy!) than Brandt ever was. I would equate Jordan's interview in the New Yorker to the status of Brandt now (was interviewed by a major periodical). Yet after the scandal, Jordan became truly famous (or infamous) - for not one, but two well publicized scandals that brought controversy to Wikipedia. That absolutely merits a BLP, but Jordan was given the soft-touch. Brandt is a small time detractor, and the very fact that there is such a fight about someone so marginally notable is telling about the nature of the situation (a power struggle). What I propose is that if you feel that there have been several areas where he deserves mention (such as in the Essjay controversy, or the Seigenthaler case) then put his name there. Basta.81.62.34.32 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't. That's the price that we pay for having such an open system; some people will misuse it. We can't protect the page from AfD, after all. --Agamemnon2 00:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears WP allows the never ending race for the Harold Stassen AfD Award.--Oakshade 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Other than being tangled in with Wikipedia, Brandt is not notable. Now, we keep his article because he pissed us off. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Sean William @ 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Actually, Daniel Brandt is notable per Wikipedia:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites much coverage of this nature in Daniel_Brandt#References. John254 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline. Sean William @ 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Other than being tangled with Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales isn't notable. Can we delete him too!? --h2g2bob (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a poor example. Jimbo created the whole damn thing. All Daniel Brandt did was bother us. Sean William @ 00:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's rather POV. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No it's not. Jimbo is known to both us and the world because he created Wikipedia. Brandt is notable to us because he's bothered us, but he's not notable to the outside world. --Rory096 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
          • He was notable for PIR before Jimbo Wales was notable for Wikipedia. —freak(talk) 18:00, Jun. 11, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sean William Mangoe 00:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per comments above and new BLP policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Any policy that would authorize deleting articles of such high quality as this, on the basis of said policy alone, needs to be taken out and shot. —freak(talk) 18:07, Jun. 11, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dan (yes I know he isnt supporting a delete but I agree with has points and the reaons are why my vote has changed form keep in the past). The refusal of some to allow Brandt to comment on the article talk page has also led me to this vote, and I think non public figures who satisfy notability but stronglly oppose having an article on themselves should alsop be taken into consideration, SqueakBox 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although I think this nomination is premature. We've not quite matured enough to rid ourselves of this....soon.-Doc^g 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify those comments? --h2g2bob (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have always thought this article should be deleted. Its existence is a festering sore on the face of Wikipedia. As Brandt himself said recently, we simply don't have the material with which to write a proper biography of Brandt. There just isn't enough public information. At best we can write a free "Who's Who" entry, and we're not that kind of project. Let it die. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground, but the fight to keep this article in existence certainly makes me wonder about that maxim. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The festering sore is that we have been forced to debate this 13 times over, by people repeatedly challenging keep decisions. I know of no other forum in which this would be permitted. things settled are settled. It is not possible for a person to become less notable; since he was ruled N, and it was confirmed several times here and at DR, the thing for co-operative Wpedians to do is to accept the consensus. DGG 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not True! If you think that no other forum allows for cases to be carried on for this long, then you don't know all the forums.... for example: GATT/WTO Case, EU vs. US on "DISC/Foreign Sales Corporations" took place between 1987-2002. The Middle East Crisis, Various borders of Saharan African countries, debated for decades. Sometimes, brother, the case needs to wait for the right time. As with this 14th Afd. 81.62.34.32 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note:

Some Wikipedians are doing a 'Kabuki Dance' around the real issues at hand. The votes for keep are logically fallacious arguments and have no merit or relevancy. I mean. Try to focus on th new BLP policy. Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a battleground for this.

The irony is overwhelming...

Here is a guy who is barely notable with his (limited) activism who criticises Google and Wikipedia on privacy issues, and we pay him back by giving him a biography article on his real life. Payback meaning: So you like privacy, eh? Here’s an article about you, eh? Welcome to the wild wild west Wiki! Really Wikipedians, shouldn't this be handled in a bit more respectiveful and professional manner? Or are we the cabal who reacts to criticism? 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 deserves an article which has privacy concerns about a less than notable figure in the real world ("Oh well." He said while shaking his head). :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• The real logical fallacy is that the explicit justification for the BLP policy is that "Wikipedia is a top-ten website", but the most prominent critic of wikipedia is considered not important by some. You can't have it both ways. Either wikipedia is important and by extension so are its leading critics, or wikipedia is unimportant, it's critics are non-notable and the BLP policy has no real reason to exist. --JJay 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• The most notable critic of Wikipedia is Larry Sanger who has launched a new encyclopedia named Citizendium. I rest my case. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• You say Wikipedia isn't a battleground, yet you support those who abused AfD by bringing this dormant issue up for the fourteenth time? - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I hope this nomination isn't any abuse of AfD: I haven't participated in any of the previous ones and I did raise this based upon a policy change. Durova^Charge! 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not be a battleground. I support the nomination because we should not make it a fifthteenth AFD next month and continue this never ending wheel war back and forth struggle of AFD debates. I mean, we have an article on a guy who is barely notable for criticising Wikipedia for having an article on him. How strange. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that "wheel war" is the phrase that you wanted there :). Sean William @ 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tony Sidaway, just so I don't have to give myself a headache in trying to close this later. There is absolutely no point in keeping this article, and it does much more harm than good. Outside his battles with Wikipedia and its community, he's not notable himself (his websites might be); we don't keep articles out of spite. I will also chime in that the nomination is not in bad faith, nor is this AFD a speedy keep candidate. --Coredesat 01:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am a something of an inclusionist, who has in the past sided with Keep in this article. I have become convinced that allowing opt-out of semi-notable BLP subjects is a wiser course.Edivorce 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It was noted in the Allison Stokke AfD that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry..... That applies here, too. -- Robster2001 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • {{fact}}: Daniel Brandt is not a fleeting news figure - He has appeared in notable publications over many years and and has published multiple books. He isn't an unwittingly notable figure, he has brought his notability upon himself. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• CORRRECTION to your {{fact}}Brandt has actually *not* published "numerous books". His main notability stems from protesting the removal of this article. Not everyone who appears in articles or is intereviewed gets an encyclopedia page - they don't even make it into Who's Who. Where is Brian Bergstein's wiki-page? (the main AP writer on Wikipedia). Where is Noam Cohen's wiki-page (the main NYT writer about tech, including Wikipedia). These people are far more notable, but have no page. And why the huge narcissistic focus on Wikipedia? This isn't an encyclopedia about Wikipedia. It is a general encyclopeida. Brandt is not a historical figure.81.62.11.85 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Further, the "not a newspaper" requirements refer to articles about living people notable only for one event. So if Brandt was known only for the Seigenthaler controversy or only for CIA HTTP Cookies or only for Googlewatch or only for NameBase; then that argument would apply. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Above arguments persuaded me to vote this say. However, the nom is very pointy none the less. Whsitchy 02:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep [2] has more than enough significant, non-trivial sources for me to say this article should be kept. (And no, I am not counting the raw numbers there, I know plenty of them are totally unrelated to him). Note, my opinion is not based in any way whatsoever on Daniel Brandt's wishes, or the past disruptions that have occurred, but simply on the existence of these sources, which include at least one interview. That said, I am deeply saddened that once again, this article must become a battleground. Mister.Manticore 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Borderline notability. Deletion will only benefit the subject and Wikipedia. Keeping the article seems like the foolish expression of a will to punish the subject. FNMF 03:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, already. Plenty notable for an article among our 1,000,000 articles; meets guidelines, well sourced, etc, etc. Brandt will always be able to convince someone to renominate this for AFD; do we really need to go through this repeatedly? Maybe we should just schedule the AFD nomination for the first day of each quarter of the year. -R. S. Shaw 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why we include articles on people is because they have done something significant. What is something significant Daniel Brandt has done? (messedrocker • talk) 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Brandt has done things significant enough to go into an encyclopedia of "all human knowledge". All he asks is that we move the data into articles about the event. As per WP:BLP describe the event and not the person. Only Brandt needs to be linked to three or four other articles, so a simple redirect doesn't work; and some say that means a minimization of our article on him is not appropriate. I say let's minimize when the subject requests it. Move the data. WAS 4.250

• Keep If you give everyone an option to have their article deleted if they don't like it then anyone who's ever done anything wrong has a case to agitate for their removal from Wikipedia. If he's giving interviews then he's putting himself out in the public domain and can't cry foul when he can't control that information completely. The article is sourced, neutral and has passsed AfD on numerous occasions and I see no compelling reason for deletion. Nick mallory 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually I'm only proposing this option for living people who aren't famous enough to get coverage in traditional paper-and-ink encyclopedias. I consider that a fair exception to WP:NOT because Wikipedia is a new project and these people based reasonable expectations upon the limits of print media when they made disclosures about themselves. Durova^Charge! 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • • This is just silly. Most people with BLPs are very famous, and most don't want them taken down. But other requests for take-downs have been honored for more-famous people. Even Ryan Jordan doesn't have a wikipedia page (probably out of respect for his privacy by WMF) and his name was no. 1 reported by many, many newspapers. He's far more notable, than Brandt - who's principal claim to fame was outing Jordan's untruths. So why does Brandt get a page he doesn't want, but the more-famous Jordan gets an opt-out (in the form of the "Essjay Controversy" article, rather than one in his name. That's just dumb. 81.62.11.85 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep I think the closing admin should take his request (to have his article deleted) into account (according to the new guideline). But as there is no consensus as to the weight given to the request, this article should be kept, because it is built upon multiple reliable and widely viewed sources (I saw at least 1 ref from CBS, AP, and NYT). If they think he is notable enough to get his opinion on matters and/or write about him, he is notable enough to have an article here. I also think that as with any person, anything overly critical/negative should warrent multiple (and probably high profile) RS citations to possibly merit inclusion. R. Baley 04:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • if "If they think he is notable enough to get his opinion on matters and/or write about him, he is notable enough to have an article here". is justification for a Wikipedia article, then Greg Kohs deserves a BLP. And if being interviewed in the newspaper implies required BLP coverage, then there should be a systematic BLP creation for every person interviewed in the NYT, LATimes, WSJ, Post, etc. Not to mention required BLP coverage for all persons interviewed on CNN, CBS, NBC, NFL, Comedy Central..... In fact, why not start a wikiproject-BLP? 81.62.11.85 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sean William. Ripberger 04:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject, well cited. Sorry Daniel, not today. Resolute 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if we removed all mention of Wikipedia from his article, he would still have ample sources and information to be notable. He's done more with his life than just Wikipedia, and the level of his notability reflects that. Subject has repeatedly, and continually, sought the public eye in manners totally unrelated to Wikipedia. --Haemo 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Anyone who thinks that wikipedia must retain this biography has lost all perspective. Of course it should be deleted. "Keep" voters should take a long look at themselves, while the rest of us ask "what moral universe do these people inhabit"? --Oakhouse 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep •Jim62sch• 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

• Merge anything relevant (especially references) to one or more of the articles discussing his work (to wit: Public Information Research, Google Watch, Criticism of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia Watch if we decide that should no longer be a redirect), then redirect to one of them (probably Public Information Research). I think "opt-out" is reasonable for individuals of his (limited) level of notability. JavaTenor 07:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest also changing the current redirect at NameBase to being an article. This old version would be a starting point, though it needs heavy rewriting to focus on the company and not Brandt. Carcharoth 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The article establishes a clear notability and is well beyond appropriately sourced. The AfD nom for this article is essentially a policy debate, and does not belong here. "He'd prefer not to have a Wiki article about him" is not a criterion for deletion. Ford MF 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not a courtesy delete but based on finer points. Brandt is only notable to us, not the real world.--MONGO 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment CNN? The New York Times? The AP? Seems to me it's more than just Wikipedians who consider the guy notable. Even if he is just a pundit. Ford MF 09:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As far as I understand it, the minority is arguing that the sources where Brandt's name crops up aren't as much about him as they're simply using him as a source. --Agamemnon2 15:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. True. Still, I'm saying that punditry is a perfectly acceptable form of notability. Ford MF 18:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or (more likely) Merge to relevant articles might be the best solution. Then let's mull our deletion policies. Seeing these perennial things come here makes me wish we had stone-inscribed Non-Controversial Deletion Criteria (none of these catfights about notability), and a separate Controversial Deletions Board that would analyse the article and subject's suitability for inclusion from all angles. But this isn't the place for policy debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete he is only "notable" insofar as his connection to Wikipedia. Any relevant information may be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 11:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd heard of him before I'd heard of Wikipedia, due to his criticism of Google (and the counter-criticism of him this attracted). *Dan T.* 11:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are two references on the bio (salon.com and counterpunch) that have done biographies or biographical articles on this person specifically.Piperdown 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• KeepMake into Disambig page I read rereading WP:BLP and the "deletion standards" part mentioned in this nom gives no good reason, but "People who are relatively unknown" gives reason to remove personal information. Right now the article is mostly about stuff on his websites like Namebase and Googlewatch. I'd first say to shrink the article, but it would eventually get big again so the best thing to do is to make it a disambig page and keep it there. Also if it's deleted, it'll just bring a war on and forcing it to stay a disambig page will prevent a whole deletion review war. It could link to articles about some of his websites and then the Seig-something-spelling scandal and that'll be it. SakotGrimshine 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  The whole idea of a disambiguation page is to make a page title not ambiguous. There's nothing ambiguous about Brandt's name, and we don't have any articles on anybody else named Daniel Brandt. I don't think a disambiguation page would be very helpful. Sean William @ 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Are you saying we can't minimise? Are you saying we should use the term "minimize" instead of "disambig"? Are you playing semantic games? WAS 4.250 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Memores acti prudentes futuri. Marskell 14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony Sidaway. ElinorD (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC) And also per SlimVirgin and Will Beback below. ElinorD (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only marginally notable. I'd suggest that interested editors watch this subject and re-insert the bio if at some point he receives the media coverage that would warrant a biography, whether he likes it or not.--Mantanmoreland 15:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Under our usual rules, he merits one now. How much do we need? Why should he need more than others? J Milburn 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can clarify your second and third sentences in Talk, and I don't understand them.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Then Brandt becomes notable for repeatedly not wanting to be on Wikipedia? Where does it end?--86.131.90.51 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  (ec) No, if he ever becomes notable for a legitimate reason.--Mantanmoreland 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, such as being written about in many third party, reli... Oh, wait. J Milburn 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  He has been mentioned, not written about. Big difference. No, I don't believe a Q&A in Counterpunch makes him notable.--Mantanmoreland 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Oh my god, put an end to the madness already. And I don't mean that as hyperbole. I understand the issue of fighting hard on principle, I really do. I've fought very many times that way in my life, to great cost. But by now, the point has been made, and whatever principled justification there may have been for Wikipedia's stance here has since degraded into large amounts of spite and bullying. Let it (and Brandt) go! -- Seth Finkelstein 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) Marginal notability: 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." This is how newspapers refer to people they regard as private figures. (2) We're an encyclopedia project; we're not here to engage in these battles, to make people notable, to make them miserable, or to prove how tough and unbending we are. (3) The subject says he wants it deleted; its existence affects him a lot, but barely affects us at all, so his views should be given a high priority. (4) Inclusionism as an ideology is inappropriate when it comes to living persons, who are subjects of their own lives, not objects for us to contemplate. As a project, we have to learn when to leave people alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per request of the article subject and not very notable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Blatantly a notable subject. Are we really going to bend to him? Of course we shouldn't. Our encyclopedia will be incomplete without information on him- I honestly can see no reason to delete. Are we going to let someone who has posted attacks against us and our administrators dictate what we can and can not have? Think about it- we would be stooping in deleting this. This should be kept. J Milburn 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Mindboggling that J Milburn, a 16 year old person feels he has the right to dictate the course of a 49 year old man's life. The man's not famous, and his presence in the encyclopedia isn't crucial. Voting on this AfD is not a video game. It's a man's life. I think it is great that Wikipedia isn't age-ist, in terms of editing, such votes are perfect evidence that life experience provides insight.81.62.34.32 12:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  If he wanted to keep, would you vote to delete? His attacks on administrators should not be taken into consideration in determining whether the article should be kept. His chief attackee appears to favor deletion. Why be more Catholic than the Pope?--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Blatently not a notable subject, Daniel Brandt has repeatedly requested his biography be deleted from Wikipedia and repeatedly the massed idiots of Wikipedia have voted to keep on the ludicrous grounds that he is notable because of his desire not to be on Wikipedia. This whole farce of BLP is undermining the credibility of Wikipedia and is a disgrace to the notion of democratic accountability.--86.131.90.51 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a former featured article candidate. I have seen AfDs being speedy closed because the article they concerned was a former FAC, yet, no doubt, I am going to be looked down upon by many people for supporting this. J Milburn 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: The abuse of the subject is a disgrace. It doesn't matter if it qualifies for a Pulitzer.--86.131.90.51 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Oh, so because of vandalism, bad edits and a few calls of bad judgement, we should never ever mention a notable individual again? The abuse is barely 'a disgrace' anyway. Pull the other one. J Milburn

  Comment: The only reason he became notable was because of the attacks made on him by Wikidiots and his responses to them. Yes, let's pull the other one - the only reason there's any discussion about Brandt is because he fought back against Wikipedia.--86.131.90.51 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: If he is notable, as you now admit, the article should be kept. For further reading on his "notability" see: Jefferson Morley, Tinker, tailor, soldier, spywatcher: Daniel Brandt, The Nation, November 7, 1988 [3]; Mark Hand, Searching for Daniel Brandt, Counterpunch, Jan. 3, 2003 [4]; Daniel Terdiman, Newsmaker: In search of the Wikipedia prankster, Cnet News, Dec. 15, 2005 [5]. Only one of these profiles mentions wikipedia. None discuss "attacks made on him by Wikidiots and his responses". --JJay 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Oh, so he is notable. You know what? I knew that. We are not here to make judgements on whether people deserve to be notable, otherwise, I can assure you, I would vote delete on an awful lot of rappers. We are not here to make judgements on whether people should be notable, the only thing that matters is that they ARE notable. J Milburn 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- It's time to get past this obsession with Mr. Brandt and move on to building a real encyclopedia. Quite frankly, we would all be better off if people went about improving the articles that should appear in a traditional encyclopedia, instead of using this as some new Usenet forum for their favorite "villainous meme" of the day. A supposedly well-sourced article on Mr. Brandt will not make or break the encyclopedia. Tons of unsourced, unreliable articles will. Delete and get back to the real work of encyclopedia-building. Danny 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-referential. Aside from battling with Wikipedia, Brandt is non-notable. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Delete Wikipedia, while you're at it then. No one would be concerned about the notability of this subject, were it not for his opposition to this article. J Milburn 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment to comment: Suggesting that ifwe don't agree with you, then Wikipedia should be deleted is neither a mature, nor a valid, arguement. 81.62.34.32 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per concerns addressed by Danny and Tony Sidaway. The article is on borderline notability and the subject has requested the article's deletion multiple times. This has gone on for far too long, and subjects of articles should have some say in what happens to their articles per WP:BLP concerns given their questionable notability. Cowman109^Talk 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Message for keep voters: Would you consider a compromise of merging the essential material to other articles? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• No. I agree with bdj if only because merging him in just spreads the problem and does not deal with it. BDJ

First off, I'm not voting. This is a discussion, not a vote. It's highly inappropriate to take this as a vote. Second, no, I don't feel such an action would be appropriate. The man is notable for numerous things, splitting them off all over the place would not be constructive to providing appropriate coverage of him. Instead of having one central location for finding out about Daniel Brandt, you'd have to pick and choose, and might not even realize he's done more than one thing. That's not an advantage. Mister.Manticore 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with badlydrawnjeff and Mister.Manticore. Merging is bad in this case, and this should certainly not be a vote. J Milburn 17:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. AFDs are votes and not opporunties for exactly three people to stir the pot about what AFDs are for and how they are carried out.--86.131.90.51 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: AfDs have never been votes. Or, at least, not in the time I have been here. J Milburn 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AFDs are not votes, it says so all over the place. See WP:AFD and WP:!VOTE for many examples. Wide participation is certainly welcome, and having more than three people involved is helpful in establishing consensus. But since there's quite a lot more than just three people participating in this discussion, I don't see that it's a problem. Mister.Manticore 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment If it isnt a vote that will favour the deleters in this case, I would suggest. Though clearly whoever makes the closure has a problem, SqueakBox 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'll assume good faith, and guess that your opinion just differs from mine, not that you are trying to persuade the closing admin to delete in a rather underhand manner. In fact, as I look at it, I would say the keep arguments are far stronger than the deletion ones. J Milburn 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment::Huh? I would say quite the opposite, and my comment around the closing admin having a problem does have to do with your comments but isnt an underhand way of trying to influence the afd (if I wanted underhand I wouldnt comment on it here). If you want to claim that you are so right that other views should be ignored I would suggest that you are not understanding how wikipedia works, SqueakBox 18:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not at all, I have a good understanding and a great respect for how Wikipedia works. It's just that someone could interpret your comment as suggesting an administrator who closed this with a result of keep would be acting improperly, and so trying to influence the closing administrators decision in a meta-discussion way, which would certainly be underhand. J Milburn 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. Were I a newbie like you are perhaps but given my track record both in wikipedia and re DB your comments are a violation of my good faith and could be interpreted as trolling. Please cha

Perhaps, if instead of asserting the deleters will be favored if this isn't a vote, you had explained why, maybe it would be easier to understand your position. Your view is thus quite unsupported by an actual explanation, which makes it hard to understand you. Mister.Manticore 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asserting anything. Millburn asserts his arguments are the strongest, and therefore the closing admin must support him. Then he accuses me of trying to tip the balance merely for disagreeing with him. I mean come on what kind of argument is that? I explained myself perfectly adequately in my original comment, SqueakBox 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You made the statement that "If it isnt a vote that will favour the deleters in this case, I would suggest" which is clearly an assertion. However, the problem is that you didn't explain why. What Millburn has or hasn't done doesn't change the problem as I see it, which is that you've made a bare assertion without offering constructive reasoning. That is the sort of thing that leads to these discussions becoming problematical. So insofar as the concern is that you didn't explain adequately, I agree. You offered no explanation or reasoning as to why deletion would be favored, merely asserted that they were. That's a problem. Mister.Manticore 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for crying out loud We have had 13 opportunities to actually be an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Let's make #14 count for something. --BigDT 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 14th time lucky eh? perhaps that will be an article in 22nd Century wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I voted Keep in the past, but I have modified my view about the BLP inclusion threshold since. I now believe that as an encyclopedia of BLPs, we should remain a passive observer, like any good measurement tool, and not an active party that directly affects people. In this case, Mr. Brandt falls into what I consider marginally-notable non-famous persons, which I believe do not belong here. By us having this article, we are impacting and influencing his life and career, and thereby we are no longer a passive encyclopedia but more of an active newspaper, which is not our role as I see it. Crum375 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am assuming the best possible motives for the bringing of this AfD after 13 previous occasions of community consensus for retaining this article, I genuinely am. At the same time, I am somewhat disappointed to see that one of the most contentious articles ever put up for AfD on Wikipedia was apparently chosen as something of a "test run" for the new BLP deletion expansion. Wikipedia works by policy, consensus and precedent, and none of these elements speaks to a deletion in this case as I see the matter. Sufficient third-party sources have been provided to establish notability, the main point of contention, as I (and others who have !voted "keep" in previous discussions) understand the term. The new expansion notes that closing Admins should take the desires of those about whom the BLPs are written "into account," so yes... there are some discretionary (i.e., subjective) elements now introduced into the deletion procedure of this type of article. At the same time, I don't see how this could possibly override overwhelming past consensus and the issues still not addressed by those who have voted "delete" in the past, the primary one being an absolute inability to credibly cite any violated policies. As I said last time, I can appreciate the desires of those about whom BLPs are written, but - for those who make the emotional appeal to being a "real encyclopedia" have potentially failed to take into account - serious encyclopedias are more concerned with data and less with courtesy. That may or may not be unfortunate, but this is the environment in which we're operating here. If this article is to be deleted, I should like to see at least ONE of the following three elements (policy, consensus or precedent) decidedly against it, not the use of this entry as a means of setting precedent for future situations that will undoubtedly garner far less contention by those involved. For these reasons, I would like to see this article retained until or unless there is at least some strong precedent (a case like this, in my view, would require it) based upon the new BLP deletion guidelines for removing it. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise... but none of the current deletion advocates have introduced anything new to the discussion. ◄Zahakiel► 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Zahakiel, Your arguments fail on a several counts. First of all, encyclopedias are concerned with content, not data. And that content is regulated by publishing laws, and standards of practice, which Wikipedia is setting precedent for, as an online publication in a new field. This AfD is a response to a policy shift, and in that light there need not have been a severe breach of policy to warrant a nomination. Rather, this is a case of the rules having matured, as Wikipedia tests the waters of what-works. Secondly, I think that you are confusing "courtesy" with "respect for privacy", and in the case of a semi-notable figure, when Wikipedia is the principle invador of an individual's privacy (as opposed to a truly famous person who's information is in the public domain), that respect translates into not only courtesy, but avoidance of many problems. Thirdly, as concerns that this should not be the precedent-setting case, it is normally true that the most flamboyant of cases are those that set precedents. In that light, the very-flamboyant Brandt BLP case can only expected to be a precedent setting venture. Of course, if it would satisfy you a bit, you can take the Alison Stokke BLP as a precedent - or you could use the fact that Ryan Jordan (Essjay), a man who caused huge media uproar, and is more truly famous than Brandt, was obvious given an opt-out for a BLP by someone at Wikipedia/WMF. 81.62.34.32 13:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Reply - Perhaps a differentiation of what you consider the difference between content and data, and some validation for that viewpoint, would make your response a little more comprehensible to me. As I said, I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not seeing anything new here. I have never questioned the validity of this AfD; I am aware of the policy shift (which is not a reversal of any existing policies, just a modification to allow for a potential consideration) and I can appreciate Durova's reasoning for bringing it; I am just disappointed that this case is being used as a tester considering its long history. I am not confusing courtesy with privacy, I am using a word employed by the nominator of this article as the reason why it was brought up again for consideration, and was replying to that specific statement. And no, I am not satisfied that the three discussions you raise provide sufficient precedent for overturning 13 previous keep votes. I don't think this is an unreasonable position or a "failed" argument. As I said in my initial post, such an extraordinary shift in consensus would require, and I quote from what I said, "at least some strong precedent." ◄Zahakiel► 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Reply2You writing is most eloquent, and argumentation sincere. Honestly, I wouldn't deign to attempt to persuade you - I don't think that it is possible. If policy and precedent and moral support for history are crucial points for you, then you probably quite well decided. I've stated my views already, on viability of this case as a precedent (precendent not being entirely relevant as-such on Wikipedia - which is hardly a replication of the common law juridical system), on the need for policy change (which has been pleasantly responded to) and I've gone as far as to suggest that the earlier decisions may well have been mistakes (as well as correct). Frankly, I dont think that the past matters quite as much- especially when we are discussing internet publication and cyberprivacy which is new and uncharted territory. It is possible that Wikipedia has been going through a teething-process, of determining what works and what doesn't, and what is going to help the encyclopedia success, while managing to leave article subjects in their relative natural state (i.e., not angry). I suppose I can only add that inevitable conflict between "being right and being happy". I think that the deletion of this article would result in greater happiness for all - and success for the project. 81.62.34.32 17:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Slim Virgin and Crum375. I too have voted 'keep' in the past, but now concur with the borderline notability issues raised here. Risker 19:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wonderful points made by User:SlimVirgin and the marginally notable subject's wishes. daveh4h 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As I've said before, this article isn't worth the trouble. I realize that isn't a standard reason to delete an article but IAR is a core policy and in this case it would be best to place the overall well-being of the project ahead of guidelines like "notability". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question It's normal (from what I've seen) to provide a box with links of the prior AfD discussions. May we do this, as I'm still trying to figure out which (if any) of the above arguments are actually original. (Yep, I know it's THIRTEEN others. The average comes out to about 2 per month if I have it figured correctly.) And yes, I'll be bold and do it, if I can figure out how. Forgive me, it's not just an idle question on my part; I strongly suspect much (if not all) of this discussion is asking the other parent. LaughingVulcan 19:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Original poster screwed up nomination - I'll try and add one --h2g2bob (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per request of the subject. (Though I think matters like this would be more appropriately handled through WP:OFFICE rather than by the whim of the community.)—AL ^FOCUS! 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per points 2,3, and 4 made by SlimVirgin. I don't agree with her point #1 but..... #2,3and 4 are overriding any notability. Clearly if a subject does not want an article why harm him with an article ? This prinicipal should be extended to other issues which are harmed by having an article on them. Zeq 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: What harm is he suffering exactly? Is Wikipedia repeating false and malicious information about him? Is not there a concern about censorship? Mister.Manticore 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the principle of the thing, rather than the particulars. Privacy and notability concerns are not censorship issues.—AL ^FOCUS! 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the principle of, I guess, not harming is met with the principle that not having information on a subject is also harmful. In any case, any removal of information is inherently a censorship issue. How is this anything but censorship? Especially when you try to make it about the principle, not the particulars. The only reason a subject should not have an article should be related directly to the particulars of the subject, not some grand principle. Mister.Manticore 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if something is true, it doesn't mean that it can't be harmful. This is why opt outs for marginally notable people are being debated. For example, it may be true that I am a drug addict, but assuming I am a marginally notable person, I may not want that fact repeated as a number one result on google. I don't see it as censorship, it is just a reaction to how Wikipedia can affect people's lives in a bad way. Only the subject of the article can determine if his or her bio is affecting their life negatively. That may be a bad example, and I am wondering if this is an appropriate place for this discussion, but that is my take. daveh4h 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if something is harmful to one person, censorship can still be a bad idea. The fact is, there are many people who don't want things about them known, not always for noble reasons. You might as well say the Internet should be shut down because I can use it to look up people's criminal records or find information about them that they might not want me to know. Sorry, but the idea that Wikipedia should censor itself because there are folks who might conceivable in some unspecified way may possibly be hurt by information about them being available? It's not convincing. Especially not in this case when a specific concern of harm can't be articulated. Like it or not, Freedom of Speech is a major issue, and while the wide audience available through the Internet and Wikipedia may be unprecedented, I don't see that we should sacrifice one freedom to benefit a few. Not when it can so easily in offensive ways. In this case, where the subject of the article has clearly chosen to participate in the public forum (the man has given interviews and released books), I see no reason to delete. Mister.Manticore 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could you be *any* more dramatic? Brandt didn't write the Magna Carta. He's a book binder, who runs a small non-profit which creates a database. He's mostly been a source of media comment about how Wikipedia wouldn't take his bio down, which because he feels he's not famous, was a huge privacy invasion. And he's a fabled villan on Wikipedia because of the outing of real names of admins, but no one in the real world cares about that. As for freedom of speech, that's terrific to get philisophical about such things - but there are also laws to protect private information of people, and against harassment. For example, you might have a 100% clean bill of health, but that doesn't mean that it is ok for your doctor to publish your medical records. This could be called "censorship", or it could be called "protection of data that is nobody's business but yours". Beyond that,the BLP policy absolutely needs to be more flexible, because this isn't a one-off reporting on someone. It is a 24/7 listing of a person's details - which unlike one or two articles, won't go away in time, or in people's memories. To make matters worse, all bios run the risk of either being vandalized, or of containing information in the history that the person would prefer to not be online (sort of like the time you got a urinary tract infection, which is true, but you'd prefer to not share it with the world - and is your right to not have to live-down 24/7). If someone is famous - well, the cat is out of the bag. But in Brandt's case, he was not famous, and he wanted this taken down, and he got stonewalled. Presently, the rules are changing, as WP is realizing that it needs to handle human beings with a bit better care. That is terrific. Now please, stop comparing the deletion of Daniel Brandt's bio with the suppression of vital political information to the voting public. Until the day you feel comfortable walking naked down the street comes, you have things private that you wish to conceal - and to call his desire for privacy censorship is the height of hypocrisy. 81.62.34.32 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• If an article contains information, like a medical record, that unduly violates the subject's privacy, that information should be removed. It's no basis for removing the entire article. No one has pointed to any specific passage in the current Brandt article that's comparable to disclosing a urinary tract infection. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  (Sigh) The medical information example was a metaphor, not a specific complaint. I'll repeat: Until the day you feel comfortable walking naked down the street comes, you have things private that you wish to conceal - and to call his desire for privacy censorship is the height of hypocrisy.81.62.34.32 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh back atcha. I understood that you didn't restrict your comment to literally medical information, which is why my comment referred to "any specific passage ... that's comparable to disclosing a urinary tract infection" (emphasis added). Your position seems to be that we must defer to a bio subject's wishes for "privacy" regardless of the nature of the information at issue. If I have any information whatsoever about myself that I wouldn't want out there, then I'm supposedly compelled to honor anyone else's request to remove information about himself, period, end of story, with no distinction to be made as to whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to that particular topic. I reject that view. There are reasonable distinctions to be made. It is not an invasion of privacy for Wikipedia to report that Daniel Brandt operates the Google Watch website and has publicly criticized Google. JamesMLane t c 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Invoking WP:MakesmeBurp . Ok James. You say: "It is not an invasion of privacy for Wikipedia to report that Daniel Brandt operates the Google Watch website...". But really, really, really this reveals three things. One, that the inclusion of Daniel is retributive for criticisms, that you think that the rest-of-the-world (majority of encyclopeida readers) actually give a shit about fights between technology specialists (they don't) and that being a criticizing person merits an encyclopedia entry (it doesn't, or there would be many people jumping on the bandwagon to get WP pages), but most importantly, IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. Do we have a page on the head of Privacy International (the very serious international body that made a serious report on Google - which slight critiques of Wikipedia and others) that got full page coverage in most (if not all) major newspapers five days ago[6] [7](did you even notice it? because if you didn't, you cant be reading the real news). No, we don't. Why? Because we just dont get that personal, usually. And it is not needed, or really necessary. And if we did that it wouldn't be consistent unless we started making bios of the head of every NGO in the world (which we dont). The Brandt stub was created by someone who maybe knew Brandt from the past, and who has a history of writing about things that they know, and people they know. It was a mistake, and even that editor admits it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.62.246 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing your specific charge of invasion of privacy. The public disclosure of private facts is objectionable, and the public disclosure of nonprivate facts is not objectionable; in neither case does the issue turn on whether the subject of the information is notable (although some public figures have a lesser expectation of privacy in some respects). I used Brandt's relationship with Google Watch as an example of what's actually in the article and is not an invasion of privacy. I've still seen no credible case that anything in the article is an invasion of privacy.

Instead of trying to make such a case to support your original assertion, you veer off into bickering about my Google Watch example. To address your new points briefly: My support for inclusion of Brandt isn't "retributive" for anything. I'm not familiar with the substance of his criticisms of Google, so I might even take his side if I studied the issue, but certainly I'm not trying to hurt him because of anything he said about Google (or about Wikipedia or any other subject). Your characterization of my motive is false. Second, I don't think that the majority of the world, or even of our readers, care about Brandt. So what? That's not the standard. The majority don't care about Millard Fillmore, or even about Mallard Fillmore. Finally, as to the heads of Privacy International and other NGOs, I agree with the view that "you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist...." (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?) We do of course have some NGO heads. Some of the missing ones should probably be added. Others might be inappropriate article subjects if all the useful information can conveniently be included in the article about the organization. One factor in favor of keeping the Brandt article is that there is no one article that could fulfill that function. Keeping this article is the most efficient way to make the information available for our readers (or, more precisely, for the significant minority that care). JamesMLane t c 15:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, no-one is preventing Daniel Brandt being mentioned in the relevant articles such as Wikipedia critisism and GoogleWatch. I think a NameBase article could be interesting. Could someone please write it? Wikipedia can exercise editorial discretion without engaging in censorship. Writing about the notable parts of his life is fine, but unless reliable secondary sources (not newspaper articles) have written a biography of him, we shouldn't attempt to do so. Carcharoth 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 3

• Delete article in line with the reasoning of Ms Durova and Ms Virgin. Seen on holiday in cottage country this weekend — on a plaque above the door of a gentlemen's washroom, a cartoon figure of a maid with a mop, and a caption that read, "My aim is to keep this washroom clean — your aim will help me to do it." Angelina Wartenberg 20:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep - Brandt was already notable enough because of NameBase alone, long before he started "watching" Google and Wikipedia. He became famous for pushing other people and organisations into the spotlight against their will. And now he complains that "watching the watchmen" aplies to him as well? --Latebird 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the essential point here is the difference between media mentions and media coverage in regards to notability. Shell ^babelfish 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nation article was primarily devoted to him, as was the ZD interview. DGG 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; Daniel Brandt will never be a figure worthy of historical or encyclopedic coverage. Solely because of his omnipresence within the Wikimedia Community and his criticism of the Wikipedia project itself does his article remain. He's as notable as that poor Chinese boy or that little girl athlete who was harassed by the blogosphere.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Following SlimVirgin's line of reasoning, and that we should not be doing any first bios, synthesizing material from ancient newspaper clippings. --MichaelLinnear 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Once N, always N. DGG 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All the reasoners who have voted delete have it spot on and therefore I won't repeat. I'll go with what Ryulong, SlimVirgin, and many others have said already since again it's just spot on. -Pilotguy hold short 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I object to the insinuation by some editors that keeping the article is an exercise in spite. I bear Brandt no ill will. I consider him notable based on widespread media coverage. Given his objective notability, his wishes are entitled to zero weight -- we shouldn't keep the article to retaliate against him nor should we delete it in deference to his request. The issue is whether a significant number of readers would encounter his name and want to know more about him. Clearly they might, so it should stay. JamesMLane t c 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Our rules are the same now as the rules then. Press coverage makes N. Sourced statements are not removed, whether negative or positive. If N, the subject does not get his choice of whether to have an article No one owns an article. COI applies--least of anyone can the subject affect the content of the article. All true 12 deletions ago, all true now.

and some of the above arguments are trying to make it seem like a landslide for delete--it isn't, it's about 4 to 3 in favor of keep. It goes by the best arguments, and the arguments must be based on policy, chief among which is that notable subjects get articles -- & basic honesty: subjects do not dictate coverage of articles in this or any ethical publication. DGG 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per the many arguments presented. Let's move on, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here are two general approaches to moving on: (1) Everyone comes to an agreement and there's no more dispute. (2) The underlying dispute persists, but a process is established for resolving it, the process plays itself out, and the side that doesn't like the outcome nevertheless accepts it and moves on (see the 2000 U.S. presidential election for the outstanding modern example). In this instance, alternative #1 is manifestly impossible. I haven't looked through the previous AfD's to try to understand why alternative #2 has failed so abysmally; that's a question that can be answered only by you and the other supporters of deletion. By the way, if this AfD succeeds, should I assume that, in fairness, those of us favoring keep are entitled to mount 14 successive DRV's before we're required to "move on"? JamesMLane t c 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • With fairness, I really don't think your comments on the legitimacy of having multiple AFDs are appropriate. I understand that you say you have not looked through them yourself, but I can succintly say what they encompassed: (1) SPA (probably Brandt) nominated it for deletion, (2) procedural (and weird) nomination, (3) Brandt again, (4) deletion based upon subject's wishes, (5) invalid (procedurally), (6) SPA, (7) SPA, (8) based upon "person does not want it", (9) another weird one, (10) (can't describe it), (11) one reasoning mostly on his attacks to Wikipedia et al., (12) non-notable, (13) procedural (after the Daniel Brandt wheel war). Okay, so now that I say that, please explain how this nomination is like any of those. I certainly don't think that it is. It is a nomination based upon the BLP policy, not the notability guideline. This is, essentially, a completely different AFD because it is based upon a completely different reason than any of the previous 13. So again, I ask, how is it fair to base anything upon the existence of the thirteen previous AFDs? --Iamunknown 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, like all (or at least, most) of the previous discussions, it's a trainwreck. The only one that I'd say aren't are the ones closed early. Besides, the theme that "he doesn't want it, we should delete it" has been pretty common throughout. Mister.Manticore 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, if you think this is a train wreck, you should have seen the other ones. Risker 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it just started. I have great faith in the ability of this one to blossom. Mister.Manticore 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, I was responding to Jossi's comment, which seemed to suggest that we should delete the article so that we don't have to keep having AfD discussions on it. That argument seems meritless to me, regardless of what happened in AfD's one through thirteen. I'm still too lazy to read them to assess whether all thirteen were so procedurally defective as to justify a Mulligan. Even if that view were correct, though, it wouldn't mean that we have to delete now in order to "move on" and stop having these bimonthly discussions. JamesMLane t c 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Subject was hardly notable before coming into contact with Wikipedia, and has only become borderline notable since then. Wikipedia should avoid self-reference, whenever possible (someone above has argued, then, for the deletion of the article Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is certainly far more notable than Mr. Brandt). Subject has gone through several legitimate Wikipedia processes to remove this article from Wikipedia, without result. Subject is not a celebrity or politician who chose to thrust himself into the public eye, and the disturbance to Wikipedia by having this article has been more detrimental than any value this article ever may have had. This article affects someone's real life, and I worry that it has been kept this long in part due to a wish for revenge upon someone who "crossed" Wikipedia, though I hasten to add that the conduct of the subject ("outting" Wikipedia users in revenge) is as reprehensible as keeping this cruddy article around. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be used to prove a point. Per WP:BLP concerns (which is a policy), per the subject's hundreds of efforts to get the article deleted, and per human respect toward a person whose livelihood in great part depends upon his name, delete. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: How on Earth has he not chosen to thrust himself into the public eye? He has written numerous articles under his own name, and has created and publicised several high-traffic websites. He thrusts himself into the public eye an awful lot, in actual fact. J Milburn 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, because writing articles under your real name means that you're trying to thrust yourself into the public eye. Please tell that to the thousands of Wikipedia editors who write articles under their own names; they're now obviously trying to thrust themselves into the public eye by writing articles, and each one should receive a Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject has few publicly notable achievements; certainly too few to merit an encyclopedia entry. -- ChrisO 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How many are you counting, and how many is enough? And are you just counting raw numbers, or weighing them differently based on individual event notability? Mister.Manticore 01:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - SlimVirgin sums this up well, I think. Gracenotes 02:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See also diff. We'll need God to close this one, please. Gracenotes 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • God is on holiday. One of the disciples will have to handle it, as usual. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm neither God nor one of His disciples but I'm actually interested in closing it. I will do my best to please everyone (which is impossible but I'll do the best I can). (messedrocker • talk) 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Bugger off. You've already made your opinion known well enough on this issue. —freak(talk) 18:03, Jun. 11, 2007 (UTC)
          • Josh said I had prior involvement. I'm not quite sure what he's talking about but I'll take his word for it (with two people, it's hard to deny). I recuse, and I'll see if I can come up with an opinion on this issue. (messedrocker • talk) 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I heard God died and was killed by Xenu. SakotGrimshine 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per new standards and marginal notability. J. Spencer 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The new BLP policy appears to be this:

"When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is currently no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."

It really doesn't sound all that conclusive. Nor does it sound like a reason to nominate for AfD, only something to think about. It's certainly not the magic pill that some "delete"s think it is --h2g2bob (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems." Sounds conclusive to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject has few publicly notable achievements; certainly too few to merit an encyclopedia entry. -- ChrisO 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Delete Delete per SlimVirgin and the following reasons:

His greatest notablity was founded on his fight to be rid of this BLP

Retaining the BLP was nasty to start with

Removing the BLP is a good faith, peacemaking gesture, which (even if notability can be argued), means less problems for everyone, and respect for this man.

An important reason: HE IS ONLY FAMOUS HERE ON WIKIPEDIA TO WIKIPEDIANS!!!! Lots of people make informing comments to papers, get interviewed, or wind up with third party reports of their lives. That doesn't mean they belong in Wikipedia. No one off wiki cares about him. He's a big deal on this page - but off the page - not really.

The most important reason: IT GETS HIM OFF OUR BACKS AND PROVES HIM WRONG. Take him off.BCBGchic 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Anybody else who complains about their Wikipedia article gets it deleted. Brandt didn't, mostly because he's been an asshole about it. However, that's no reason not to delete it, and certainly not a reason to become more adamant about keeping it (which I feel many people are using it as), but something to be ignored, so we can make our decisions just as we would anything else. It's not worth the hassle to keep it around; he's not even really all THAT notable anyway. --Rory096 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not the case that any other BLP subject who seeks deletion gets it. See, for example, this ES by Geoffrey Giuliano. The recent revision in policy says only that, for some article subjects (those of borderline notability), his or her wishes are to be given some (unspecified) weight. I agree that Brandt's behavior is no reason to keep the article but it's also no reason to delete it. If he meets the notability standard, the article should stay, even if it's a hassle. Giuliano gave several of us quite a hassle. Brandt is less notable and more persistent, but the principle is the same. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete mostly due to lack of notability, and not Brandt's wishes to get the article deleted. The subject's main claim to notability is internet activism, and that kind of activity tends to blow the amount of coverage out of proportion. Starting up critical websites is something anybody can do, and is not a claim to notability. Mentions in the media have been in passing, incidental, and not so much coverage of the person. Moreover, the conflict between Brandt and several Wikipedia editors who strongly dislike the subject create conflict of interest issues when Wikipedia hosts an article about him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We need a much higher threshold for inclusion of semi-notable, semi-public figures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - End this debacle. FCYTravis 08:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per many above and earlier. Tom Harrison ^Talk 08:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per the wishes of the subject and the fact that most of the so-called "references" are scarcely relevant to Brandt and only mention him in passing. A partially notable figure (does he have any kids? Parents? Is he married? Was he hatched? Don't we know?) who will be dead, buried, and completely forgotten about in 30 years - even on Wikipedia. As such, his wishes should be taken into account. This is not a key article of any sort. Moreschi ^Talk 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the more I think about this, the more silly I think the article is. If a Martian saw this article, he'd think Mr Brandt had been hatched from an egg. Assuming he hasn't (well, he may have, I haven't got a reliable source to the contrary), I find it very strange that we have an article on someone when the article says virtually nothing about the first couple chunks of his life and includes no personal information whatsoever. No parents? Born when? Where? No kids? No wife? No education? This is not a biography here, it's a mini-documentary on someone who doesn't like Google/Wikipedia. Which is not, really, what Wikipedia is for. Moreschi ^Talk 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One facet of notability includes the longetivy of a subject's prominence. I am not convinced that in fifty or one hundred years that Mr. Brandt will continue to be a notable individual. If I am proven incorrect, perhaps the topic of Mr. Brandt would be more accurately reported by a future generation of Wikipedians who will have the benefit of time and history to evaluate his notability without bias.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 11:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have considered this matter carefully, as a good number of people who I know for consideration and thoughtfulness have argued to delete (and Durova, for whom I have a great deal of respect, made the nomination). However, I just can't ignore what I find.
  • An extensive interview granted by Brandt to CNet.[8] I am sure he was keenly aware that this interview would be available on the Web for a long time to come—and he chose to grant it anyway. This is not the hallmark of a person keen to avoid ever being mentioned on the Web.
  • An article from 1988 from The Nation. Obviously, this article is not about Brandt's affiliation with Google or Wikipedia Watch—Google or Wikipedia wouldn't even exist for a decade! This certainly indicates that his notability is not single-issue, nor is it transient or fleeting—he's already been notable for twenty years. Nor does the article trivially mention Brandt, the article is fully about him and contains his name in the headline. Abstract here. [9] The Christian Science Monitor, a venerable and highly-respectable publication, also covered this issue in 1989, mentioning Brandt in the article lead: [10] Also covered by the New York Times in 1987: [11]
  • CBS News reports on Brandt's uncovering of the CIA cookie incident: [12]
• These alone should be plenty to establish that Brandt is of lasting, extensive notability over multiple issues. He may not have the name recognition of a Hollywood celebrity, but he's certainly notable and noted for far more than his criticism of Wikipedia. And to address the idea that we just know about him because of his interaction with Wikipedia: None of the sources cited except the CNet interview are reporting on anything remotely related to Wikipedia Watch or Google Watch, and most of them were printed before they ever even existed. But he is genuinely notable on that issue, as well. We would, quite simply, be remiss if we include a two-line stub on everyone who's ever been a third-string player for a professional sports team, but fail to include an article about Daniel Brandt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: If one of the third string players complained about his stub, it would be deleted immediately. Maybe some of them should be deleted anyways. Good case for the fallacy of "once notable, always notable" theory. Most of those players won't be notable in 20 years...81.62.34.32 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And it's a bit ironic that one of the main things he was famous for before GoogleWatch and WikipediaWatch was... get this... keeping a database with information about people -- many of them non-public figures, and none of whom had consented to inclusion. Did he have any opt-out provision? *Dan T.* 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan T., he's addressed that point repeatedly (link omitted, since it's not worth the argument over silly policies): "First, it took me five months of effort to convince editors to stop describing me as a "privacy activist." I have been an accountability activist for 39 years. The reason they wanted to call me a privacy activist is because they could then accuse me of hypocrisy, due to my efforts to hold Wikipedia editors accountable for their edits. Support was found from one or two journalists who referred to me as a "privacy activist" due to my anti-Google website, but this is completely misleading. I believe that passive web activity, such as someone making a Google search, deserves privacy. But active web activity, such as creating content for websites, should not be anonymous. Editors should be held accountable for their edits."

Yes, he was accountable for what he put in his database. He did not let any random person use it as a trolling platform to libel and defame people. -- Seth Finkelstein 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Note, this might be Seth Finkelstein of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), with a duplicate nomination and nominator to this one. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Of course it is *that* Seth Finkelstein. But you are inferring that SF nominated this article. He didn't. Durova nominated both that article and this one, and everyone knows that. He has every right to comment on Brandt's article. You need to read this AfD a bit more carefully before making accusations. 81.62.62.246 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball Keep. I cannot believe someone had the audacity to nominate this again. Utter waste of time. --Itub 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It can't be speedily kept. See WP:CSK. --Coredesat 15:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't talking about WP:CSK, but about WP:SNOW. I know it's not an official policy, but the idea fits perfectly: "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process". Thirteen (or whatever many) times is enough. --Itub 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:SNOW is an essay and not a policy or guideline; WP:CSK is a guideline. Even if it weren't, it couldn't possibly be invoked here because the outcome isn't obvious. --Coredesat 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm just using inductive reasoning. If it was keept 13 times, it seems almost certain that it will be kept again. --Itub 07:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Willingly submitted to interviews by major media publications in multiple decades for multiple reasons. To say he is a private figure stretches the bounds of credibility. Seventy Seven Thousand 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I couldn't help but notice that your account has existed since February 1, 2007, but you have contributed only to the Daniel Brandt article and your user page. If you created the username Seventy Seven Thousand to edit Daniel Brandt, I hope that you didn't vote with your "main" account as well. If these are truly your only edits, then I urge you to edit some more articles! Cheers, daveh4h 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, just like the last 13 times: Enough of the BLP nonsense; the guy brought the publicity upon himself, the article is well-sourced, and, in any case, what personal info does it actually contain? His name, and the fact that he's American. David Mestel^(Talk) 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, to compensate for the last 13 mistakes: This guy got famous mostly for criticizing Wikipedia for refusing to leave him alone. He's asked to have it off, over and over again. Even if he is notable, Wikipedia does not *require* a page for every notable person. Notability is a guideline, not a fascist mandate. And if every person who is interviewed by the press needs a BLP, then by God, we need to get Wikiproject-BLP up and running, and write up the 100 or so people interviewed in the paper and on TV today and the thousands we've missed in the past 4 years and beyond. And we'd need a BLP of Ryan Jordan (who made the front page of most US newspapers last year). Who cares if Ryan Jordan wants privacy? He made the news. Also, if a page on any person who gets interviewed is an objective, then Brandt should be the least of your worries! 81.62.11.85 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

More seriously - if you must persist in being ridiculous keep the damned article, then remove the meta-tags so that it doesn't come up first in Google and therefore be the first thing that anyone reads about this private person. 81.62.11.85 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"remove the meta-tags so that it doesn't come up first in Google" - this is something that I think Brandt often says, and I never understand what he means. Wikipedia has no control over Google's search rankings. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Meta tag removal Wikipedia can render certain pages in its database unsearchable by Google, by removing the tags. The lack of these tags is why the history pages in Wikipedia don't come up in a Google search. This could be done for this page. Easily. 62.202.195.22 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That is a VERY interesting idea. J Milburn 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that what he'd expressed a wish for was this kind of meta-tag removal and a lockdown.

• Comment I think we should not care about whether Brandt wants his article deleted or not. We should only care about whether he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. --Kaypoh 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not *require* a page for every notable person. Notability is a guideline, not a fascist mandate. 81.62.11.85 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be inflammatory. This isn't a *fascist mandate* - the question is whether his notability is enough to justify his apparent desire not to have an article on him. I believe that the answer's yes, since he's been given non-trivial coverage (mostly invited by himself) in multiple major news sources, and the article doesn't really contain any personal info. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be presumtive. Perhaps I should have said "intractable in a manner which is utterly detached from compassion". And no, you have the question very, very confused. The question is not about an informatic in/out, yes/no, binary-is-he-notable-enough question-or-answer. It is about "is there sufficient reason to place an article on the google-indexable internet when the not-really-famous subject has expressed great displeasure, even pain, at its existence". The new policy would imply "no". Again, I hate to be age-ist, because many young people are fine contributors to Wikipedia, but it is striking that the number of hard-core "keeps" in this argument are around the 16-18 age range. I remark on that not to insult you, but to comment that at this age, most people don't have an idea of what privacy is, nor do they care about protecting it. This is a man's life, not a game. You are making a blithe comment about something that truly upsets him - and he had privacy before this article - because he's not famous. He doesn't like that his name is no. 1 when it is typed in Google, and that he has to babysit this bio - and he's not particularly famous, so why not give him a get-out-of-jail-free card and quit shooting him like a video game figure and putting him back in BLP jail. This is very much of a game to many people, but it isn't to him. 81.62.34.32 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Far more notable than the meme people who are being deleted these days. No BLP implications here; if you don't want a well-sourced bio written about you, do not seek out publicity (e.g., by giving interviews). Vadder 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough, let him leave already. Also, the number of Daniel Brandts has not tripled in recent years. But this crap has. Cut it all out. 64.94.142.188 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...so Brandt is an elephant now? I guess he never forgets... *Dan T.* 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I hear there has been a shortage of Brandts in Southern Africa. Sean William @ 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. (1) Despite repeated insistence that the subject is just not notable per various personal/subjective criteria, he "has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" and so is notable. (2) We're an encyclopedia project; we're not here to make notable people non-notable and should instead merely reflect the judgments of others on the basis of information that is present in reliable published works. (3) As an encyclopedia project, we must have reasons for including and excluding articles; whether someone likes or doesn't like a neutral and accurate article should not be one of them. (4) Inclusionism and deletionism as ideologies are inappropriate when applied on a broad scale and without consideration to the merits of each individual article. As a project, we have to learn when to leave articles alone. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how this article invades his privacy. I was able to find his home address and phone number in a matter of minutes, though I won't say where. Anybody who wanted to cause problems for Daniel Brandt would be wasting their time reading Wikipedia, when the information they need is actually elsewhere. —freak(talk) 17:55, Jun. 11, 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - out of spite :). Seriously, he is notable enough. --Tom 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- This is a magnet for Wikipedia bad behavior, incomprehensible to the world at large. This is the lemmings' cliff, the heirloom china used for serving snack at preschool, the unfenced swimming pool across from the nudist colony, the wet cement in from of the high school. In short, this entry is simply an attractive nuisance. If Brandt is notable for anything other than attracting WIkipedian bad behavior, let someone else write about him. --Pleasantville 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: People have- have you actually looked at the sources cited in the article? J Milburn 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment there must be a few hundred people with this on their watchlist - vandalism will not be a problem. Nor is being s vandalism target a reason for deletion. Brandt is notable for nambease, http cookies and google/wikipedia activism. Meets requirement of multiple independent sources using only sources before Google was founded (see above). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - True, Wikipedia is not a newspaper - but somebody who's been in newspapers for 20+ years isn't merely a newspaper story - that's a strong signal of Brandt being a notable public figure. He meets WP:BIO and the article doesn't present any BLP problems whatsoever. The article is neutral and factual, and paints a fair, balanced picture of Brandt. It doesn't do him any harm, and is mostly gathered from things where he put his effort into getting information out. While Brandt may seem not to like it for some reason - suppressing information that's already in the public eye really isn't our purpose here - it's a dangerous precendent. Brandt's being a public figure is entirely of his own, conscious doing. In spite of attempts to claim he's only "semi-notable" (whatever that means) there's actually a lot of information on him - precisely because he's quite notable. WilyD 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notably, it's ironic that the "deleters" are arguing that the "keepers" are too focused on Wikipedia and how all Brandt's fame comes from Wikipedia, when the exact reverse is true - if you have way too high an opinion on the importance of Wikipedia, you'll think most of Brandt's notability comes from Wikipedia (it doesn't) - and yet exactly the opposite is being alledged unanswered. To argue delete you need to see Wikipedia way out of proportion - this guy was already becoming notable twenty years ago. WilyD 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope my nomination expresses a consistent standard: for living persons whose careers were largely pre-Wikipedia and pre-Internet let's extend a dead-trees encyclopedia courtesy deletion standard upon request. So if I can't think of any traditional encyclopedia that would reasonably include a biography of some person (including specialty encyclopedias), and that person is alive and kicking and wants off Wikipedia, let's just do the decent and courteous thing and honor that request. I don't know of anyone on either side of the Daniel Brandt dispute who's happy with the current state of affairs and, in my opinion, the whole business has been a monumental waste of time for all involved. That's why I've avoided it until now. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, practically all of the part of his career that is documented in the article is not pre-internet, and is actually internet-related and very public. It is also not true that no print encyclopedia includes biographies of living people. See for example The Film Encyclopedia. --Itub 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my case: I make no assertion that print encyclopedias omit all living people. Rather, I propose that if no print encyclopedia would cover a particular living person, and if that person wants their biography deleted from this publication, then let's honor that wish. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I misunderstood what you meant. But I still don't see how this criterion regarding print encyclopedias relates with your idea about pre-internet careers, and in any case I don't believe that this is a case of a pre-internet career. I will grant that I can't think of any print encyclopedia with an article about Brandt. But this is certainly not the only topic (or person) present on Wikipedia that I can't imagine on a print encyclopedia. :-) --Itub 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with trying to curtail our coverage to fit within the boundaries of other projects. Although I therefore consider other listings irrelevant, I note for whatever it's worth that SourceWatch has an article on Google Watch here, which includes a red wikilink for Daniel Brandt. That's a weak indication that someone at one encyclopedia thought their project should include Brandt, but that no one thought that strongly enough (at least not yet) to create the article. Unfortunately, neither of these facts tells us much. The link might have been made casually, without much thought. SourceWatch, like Wikipedia, has plenty of red links for articles that unquestionably should be created. JamesMLane t c 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 4

• Merge content on GoogleWatch and Wikipedia criticism to relevant articles (see more comprehensive merge comment above, near start of the AfD), but lose the NameBase material unless someone wants to start an article on that. Keep the name 'Daniel Brandt' as a redirect to the most appropriate place (will need further discussion), and to preserve the edit history of the merged text. I agree with the comment above that "we should not be doing any first bios, synthesizing material from ancient newspaper clippings", but find it ironic that this appears to be what Brandt started off doing with NameBase. In essence, mention him in other articles where relevant, but don't bother with an article for him. If any text in other articles is based on text from this article, please preserve the relevant edit history somewhere to conform to the GFDL. Carcharoth 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per substantially all the keep comments above & before; this article is a poster child for putting a moritorium on deletion nominations for 30-days or so following an unsuccessful attempt at deletion. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it's been about three months since the last nomination and a relevant policy has changed in the interim. I consider that reasonable grounds to renominate. Note also that I had absolutely no role in any of the previous deletion proposals. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From the active talk page (which looks to date from May 1) there are over 28 mentions of Brandt. So it looks as if the past failed AFD (which I can only guess didn't produce the "desired" outcome) caused a change in policy in the hope of producing a different outcome (deletion). Seems reasonable to assume that if it's not deleted this time, there will be more fiddling with the official policy (usually with input from a lot fewer editors). I can only guess that this article is on its way out, maybe not this time . . .but eventually. I endorse the moratorium idea after a failed AFD attempt, but it should probably be be a lot longer than a month. R. Baley 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The palpable bad faith of that comment compels rebuttal: I have played no role whatsoever in either the policy change or in any of the previous deletion nominations, nor would I waste the community's time by renominating the artile for AFD without good cause. I have no axe to grind with regard to Mr. Brandt or his article; I've opened this and the Seth Finkelstein nomination based on a consistent principle that would be a modest expansion of existing precedent. This particular basis for nomination, to the best of my knowledge, has not been tried before. There has been no backdoor bargaining here; none of the people behind the recent BLP change conferred with me toward this end in any way. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

*Deletion, Brandt isn't any more famous than millions of people without a page who have had spots of press attention. He played a part in some stories having to do with wikipedia, and is someone who gets interviewed. So do a lot of people who don't have pages. I also think it is a good-faith gesture. Also saves problems. 62.202.195.22 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: 'What about X?' is not a valid argument. J Milburn 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  Why, because an essay says so? ;) 62 is generalizing about marginally notable people, as many people on this page have done. It seems valid to me. Gracenotes^T § 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion (restated), Brandt has had minor, sporadic press attention. He played a part in some stories having to do with wikipedia, and is someone who gets interviewed only very rarely. His notability is borderline, and given his expressed wishes, and the new policy, I also think it is a good-faith, problem-solving and positive gesture. 62.202.197.199 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per David Mestel, they guy may not like it and wiki may not like it but this guy is now notable - multiple non-trivial indepenent sources back that up.--Vintagekits 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete per SlimVirgin above, especially points #1, #2, and #4. We're already wasting enough time and manpower discussing this as it is. Our time would be better spent writing or improving articles on subjects that are clearly notable. shoy 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete would be a GFDL violation. Thus, it is not a possible option. Mister.Manticore 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, participation in any AfD, including this one, is not mandatory. Statements like "we are wasting time with this" are not only disingenuous, they're frankly bizzare when coming from those voting to delete it after it's already been repeatedly kept. NO time would be "wasted" if the previous concensuses were respected and the article was let be... ◄Zahakiel► 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that Shoyrudude555 means that if this article were deleted, the AFD would be time well spent, but if not, then it would be a waste of time, like AFDs and discussion of the past. This a natural assumption from this article should be deleted, and not logically vulgar. Gracenotes^T § 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But, clearly the contrary is true. If the article were deleted, then all the many previous keeps, and all that was involved in arriving at that consistently maintained standard, were a waste of time and effort. Whether or not Shoy meant that (and I'd prefer him to clarify if he wishes) it's not a valid conclusion in my opinion, and I'm certain this isn't the place to advance that issue. My reply to his statement was to point this out. ◄Zahakiel► 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It would not be valid if it were his only argument, but he also references other arguments. Well, it seems as though we're taking the same thought, and assuming different things from it. Gracenotes^T § 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can see how that's happening :) I didn't really respond to his other arguments, I just don't think the "waste of time" statement is really all that helpful when advanced by either "side" of the discussion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, extracting a general observation. Okay. Well, if we're going to call this AFD a waste of time, at least wait until it's over first! ;D Gracenotes^T § 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't. My point (and statement) is that even though it seems to favor one side over the other, it is NOT a good argument! ◄Zahakiel► 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't, and I personally don't think there's really much of a point in calling this debate a waste of time. Reconsidering, it was probably not meant to be an argument, but only an observation. As you mentioned above, Shoy is the only person that could confirm or deny this. Gracenotes^T § 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mister.Manticore: Admins are smarter than that to do that. We are merging facts, not merging prose, and there is not GFDL violation in that. See here, under "derivative works", for more information. Gracenotes^T § 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure all the information regarding Daniel Brandt can be found at other sources, any merging of the information as presented here would created complications that would lead to GFDL concerns. Therefore, while you may assume that the Admins may be smarter than that, I'm replying to this person here, who has made what I consider to be a flawed and potentially mistaken suggestion. Merge and delete is a bad idea, and against common Wikipedia practice. Let's not do it. Mister.Manticore 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have a feeling that "common practice" is a concept that currently has little bearing on this AFD. Well, regardless, using a similar combination of sources, or even of facts, is not necessarily a GFDL violation. Modifications are much less pertinent to the ideas someone can extract from a text than than to the text itself: characters, whitespace, and punctuation. Gracenotes^T § 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, the best way to express that would be "Make articles on the events this person is notable for" not to "merge and delete" this article which just creates confusion and may lead to problems. It's certainly not a GFDL violation to do things the way others have suggested, but this is a problem. Mister.Manticore 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that so many people have changed their minds from before shows this afd is not a waste of time, SqueakBox 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment in response to Mister.Manticore - if the AfD is closed as a Merge, then the content and the history of this page can be merged to satisfy the requirements of the GFDL licence. Nick 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can be, but you'll notice the comment I responded to said "Merge and delete" . Mister.Manticore 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because if a merge is performed correctly, there's nothing but a redirect to delete. Nick 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In practice this is only done if the redirect has the wrong name, or an inappropriate name. The procedure, I believe, is to move the page to be merged (along with its edit history), call this page X, to a page with the correct name (or even just a subpage), call this page Y, then to perform the merge (or merges), remembering to note at the destinations that the content has been merged from page Y. Then to go back and delete page X. The edit history remains at page Y, which is now a redirect to the destination page. Alternatively, edit histories can be copy-pasted in total onto a page somewhere, and linked to or even directly merged with the edit history of the destination page (in practice this only works in a limited number of cases). In the vast majority of cases, though, the redirect is left in place as the placeholder for the edit history of the merged text. It is only in the case of moves that the redirects have no history, but even then they are usually kept as a redirect from an alternative name. Redirects are cheap, anyway. Carcharoth 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If we really wanted to, we could merge+delete. We can do a history merge of two articles. The history would look whacked as the two articles would have interspersed history, but GFDL only requires that we maintain contribution lists - it doesn't require that every single edit be attributed. --BigDT 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, he is notable, and ironically growing ever more every time he publicizes the argument over his article. After 13 AfDs some people really need to get a clue. I am also highly opposed to the current little wikifad of seeing how far out we can push the limits of WP:BLP. It's for the deletion of unsourced material, not for the deletion of sourced material because WP:IDONTLIKEMYFAME. --tjstrf talk 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mindboggling that a 17 year old person feels he has the right to dictate the course of a 49 year old man's life. The man's not famous, and his presence in the encyclopedia isn't crucial. Voting on this AfD is not a video game. It's a man's life. I think it is great that Wikipedia isn't age-ist; Having said that: the aforementioned opinion is perfect evidence that life experience provides insight.81.62.34.32 11:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: restrict voting on this AfD to Americans who can prove they are 49 or above. So that proof of identity is not required, all voters should present one of: Paul Anka record; 'Vote for Goldwater' campaign button; Minoxidil prescription.

Better yet: Restrict AfD participation to people clever enough to realize that not only Americans edit Wikipedia.  ;) This would presumably limit participation of the most obnoxious of American youth.

And: If Dan Brandt is 49 this year, he was 6 years old when Goldwater ran for President. Perhaps we'd better add math and history skills to AfD participation requirements.

We're not "dictating the course of" anybody's life... we're debating the status of an encyclopedia article, neither more nor less. And there's no rule that I know of whereby participation of anybody in this debate is restricted or devalued on account of their age, nationality, or other irrelevant factors. *Dan T.* 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• You mean I don't need my Paul Anka record to be able to participate? Cool! :) More seriously - I mention age here, as I said, not to diminish the rights or abilities of younger to participate actively and fully in Wikipedia. My intention was to highlight the great proportion of lack-of-understanding and intransigence of quite-a-few younger editors when it concerned privacy. For many people, when one is young, one often doesn't have the same appreciation for privacy (or its loss) that one might have later in life. (I don't mean you, Dan, as you are eternally young at heart).  :) The point is that there needs to be a greater appreciation for BLP persons' sensibilities and desires when the person is not famous, and when the Wikipedia article is the only real thing bringing any consistent level of attention to their lives. I would not have had that kind of sensibility at age 15-18. This is from where I speak. 81.62.34.32 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Also - about the comment "we are not dictating the course of someone's life" - I beg to differ. If you aren't famous, and you feel harassed by a non-desired BLP (which you more or less have to babysit everyday to make sure it isn't full of nonsense or very negative false material), then yes, you do alter the pattern of someone's daily life. Certainly this was the case for Daniel Brandt - as he has made painfully and stridently clear over the past two years.81.62.34.32 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Tired of hearing about this article. Get rid of it. - Crockspot 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a new Wikipedia policy, WP:TIREDOFHEARINGOFIT? *Dan T.* 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe anything that makes enough people nervous, depressed, and belligerent is outside of the scope of Wikipedia. After all, the purpose of AFD is to determine whether a given article is in Wikipedia's scope: this is generally covered by notability, but sometimes even that guideline fails. Gracenotes^T § 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: These new proposed AfD criteria: WP:MaKesMeBurp, WP:TuRnsMeIntoaNoGrE, WP:InvOkesPMS, would call for the eradication of the entire encyclopedia.  ;) 81.62.34.32 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:BROWNPAGE. Of course, this case goes beyond our standard content disclaimer somewhat. Gracenotes^T § 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha. That reminds me of the latest Jon Stewart, where he reported on the story of the vibrating pink logo for the London 2012 Olympics, which they took off the official website, because experts said the animated logo has invoked epileptic seizures.  :) 81.62.34.32 00:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per dozens of independent non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, which well exceeds our standard, Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article meets all the related guidelines and policies for inclusion; WP:BIO, WP:V and yes, even WP:BLP. Prolog 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Guidelines: Are necessary conditions for inclusion, that do not render inclusion a mandatory fait accompli. There is also a new policy stating that the wishes marginally notable people who want a BLP down should be respected.81.62.34.32 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Brandt is not "marginally notable" and removing neutral, factual and notable information on request (including deletion of a whole article) is simply unencyclopedic. Prolog 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Reply: Brandt is very notable to you, because Wikipedia is a big part of your life, and he's a mythic figure on Wikipedia. To the general public, and non-wikipedia-folks he's just a guy who binds books, who runs a non-profit database. He's suffered from this BLP, over two years, and it adds nothing to Wikipedia but headaches and time consumption. He's not famous. He's been interviewed a few times, but he doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia ipso facto. He wants it taken down, and we should respect his wishes. He's not famous, except possibly for fighting to take the Bio down. Let's grow up and let the man be.81.62.34.32 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The policy says the views may be taken into consideration when closing an AfD, but that there is no consensus on the weight to give it. Sure it's a policy rather than a guideline, but it's not exactly binding either. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: See, what I read in that comment, h2g2bob, is that this is a game, or a arguement to be won. It's not. BLPs concern LPs, aka "living persons", whos lives are affected by the article. This makes it very, very many ways to writing about Pokemon, or your favorite animae characters. This article affects his life, he thinks about it everyday, when someone wants to hire a person for a job, they usually google their name, and if they have a BLP, it comes up no 1 if it is in wikipedia, so this BLP more or less runs his life. If he was famous, that would be normal - but he's not famous. He's tried about everything to get the Bio down, including asking nicely, making legitimate appeals, making threats, and retaliating. In short, this article makes him very, very upset. In doing so, he has been vocal, and the entire situation has cost wikipedia time and energy, that the article doesn't merit. Let the man go so he can live his unfamous life in peace. 81.62.34.32 15:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

81, your several comments reveal either a conflict of interest, or at least a really high degree of emotional attachment to this article's AfD. Neither of these are helpful to this process. Please keep that in mind as you consider commenting further on the proceedings. ◄Zahakiel► 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Zahakiel, I criticized your statements above harshly because I felt very much like you were reading an equation, and you were trying to solve it. I find that a bit scary to do with something that affects this non-famous man's life. Thus I felt inclined to comment on more than one statement, because, well, I can.  :) What I find striking here is that you don't go back and debate the merits of your arguments, but that you start making a quasi-personal attack by claiming that I'm somehow related to Dan Brandt. Does someone have to *be* Dan Brandt to see his point of view? Maybe my criticism was taken too personally by you. To answer your question more specifically, no, I don't have any vested interest here (other than severe procrastinative tendencies) :) - rather, I do have very strong feelings what I've seen done to this man. What has happened to him can happen to anyone - it has, actually, just that he's been the loudest complainant. Also, I think that there is some very serious disconnect between many editors, and their comprehension of what their edits do to ReAl PeOpLe and their ReAl LiVEs. Very much of what goes on on Wikipedia is very video-game like to a lot of editors. Bang, bang, dink, dink, I scored X points, now look at my total game. Negotiations take place on WP, but it is very much within the internal power structure, which someone like Brandt, as a sort-of "hostage BLP subject" is outside of. And in this case, this affects a non-famous person's daily life. In that manner, I think that many people should be concerned. But I'll go back to work now, anyways.  :) 81.62.34.32 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I preferred your original reply to this latest alteration, which is more hostile. This discussion is not about either of us, so please do not question my motives. I did not myself make any attacks upon you, I simply made an observation about the tenor of your statements, and you do admit that one of my assumptions (which were labeled as such) is true - you do have a degree of emotional attachment (very strong feelings) to this discussion, and my opinion is that it has led you to make statements that are not as constructive as they could be, your recent assessment of my input, and your evaluation of "a lot of editors" as cases in point. Your conjecture that I took your criticism personally is untrue, but I do believe the policies of Wikipedia should be upheld despite some of the issues raised by those who want the article deleted. I am sure you have been observing Wikipedia for at least a little-while now, despite your current single-purpose account, but what you have to say about me, or my ability to address issues has no place here; what you have to say about other editors is immaterial, and I have made "defenses" of the merits of my arguments at their proper places (see my comments in earlier sections) when they were called for. To justify my observation that POV and emotionally charged edits are not helpful would be simply stating the obvious. ◄Zahakiel► 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zahakiel, I couldn't disagree with you more. It is the sheer lack of empathy present in much of the inputs here which is so difficult to watch unfold. What you call "emotional attachment", I would call "empathy". You are resorting to logic, rather than sensibility. This AfD is all about sensibility, and a sort of sensibility that is proactively preventative of problems not only for the BLP target, but for the entire community and Wikipedia as a whole. If you call being NPOV looking cold and hard at facts, omitting observance of qualitative factors, then you are not evaluating the full information at all. You speak of upholding policy, but policy is fluid construct. Policies are changed to meet situations new or unperceived previously. In such a fluid field as protocols and legal standards for internet publication, it is only normal that policies be reevaluated for appropriateness. This is why BLP policy was altered, and this is why this AfD is taking place. 81.62.34.32 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with me, as you are free to do, and I am not going to comment on what you think of my level of empathy. I think that's enough of this, I'm simply not going to wrangle with you or make excuses for thinking logically at a time when it's most useful to do so. ◄Zahakiel► 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zah, it was not my intention to offend you, nor to disdain logic. If you look at the comments I made to you above, they were expressly logic-related. You keep mentioning adherence to policy, but this policy has changed, and for good reason. Beyond this, there is no logic without the full, qualitative set of information. In fact, the new policy includes an assessment of the impact that a BLP has on the person's life, as expressed. That's very clear, and not POV in the slightest. 81.62.34.32 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate this latest post, as well as your one above in Section 2. We just have different views of what will be good for Wikipedia, and that's okay. On a related point, if you do alter your comments after someone replies to them without notice like a strikethrough (as you did above a couple times) you are not going to give the readers of this transcript a proper picture of what happened. I did not reply to your statement about the policy changing here because it was not here when I replied :) To that I would say what I did in section 2, I am not saying it was an invalid AfD, just that I don't think that this latest policy shift, which only includes a suggestion for closing admins, in the absence of sufficient precedent, is enough cause for me to go from keep to delete. ◄Zahakiel► 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

81 (far above) suggests I think this is a game, and that I don't really care. That isn't true - I've spent quite a bit of my time improving people's biographies, both big name stars and the little people. If you are suggesting that I don't care, I am somewhat disappointed, as I was spending quite a lot of time of yesterday improving one of our biography articles. I do care about getting things right.

I don't think the subjects of biographies should choose to stay or go - that would just leave those who fit some "strict version" of notability, those who haven't heard of us and people who are self-publicists. Not only would this be bad for Wikipedia, this would also be unfair to those who don't know of us or don't actively manage their online image. It would also discourage people from improving lower-notability articles - what would be the point if they could get deleted at any time? --h2g2bob (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought 81 was trolling, but reading my original comment again it could be that he thought it was my view only, when most of it (including the consensus comment) is taken from WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards (as linked in nomination). Apologies if that was the confusion: I assure you I don't see this as a game. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Brandt is a part of Wikipedia now, and 14 AfDs aren't going to change that. 80.195.21.26 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Ah! The we are now of one body argument. I'm sorry, but even the most solid of marriages (which is, by many many religious traditions, the joining of two persons into one) can be torn asunder. Over half of them, in fact.  :) And until you show me the part of the legal agreement in the GFDL that required that Brandt be here "until death do him part" (from BLP to DLP), I do no concur.81.62.34.32 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Reading the article, and not trawling through 13 previous AfDs, I have no idea why this is being nominated there are tons more Bio articles which have no references, and in most cases don't even meet notability, and yet this is a well written, well sourced and meets notability, is there any other criteria that needs to be assessed? He's notable and the article is well written, can we not move on? Darrenhusted 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  Erm...have you examined this nomination and the recently changed WP:BLP section? Durova^Charge! 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He is notable - • The Giant Puffin • 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The subject clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:N. Deli nk 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The section of WP:BLP linked by the nominator discusses, by my reading, the amount of weight the closing admin should give to the article's subject's preference, and does not establish this preference as an actual argument for deletion. Beyond that, the wide scope of time and subject of the various sources appears to establish notability enough to counter concerns about the motivations for keeping the article. Maxamegalon2000 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Stub and protect. Answering with a short sentence is quickly becoming non-passable currency in the Wikipedia consensus exchange rate, so I apologize in advance for an extended paragraph. Wikipedia has a major problem with how it handles the entries of living people and other entities that stand to lose (or win) based on mentions in Wikipedia and its position as a "reliable" source (and often the very first search engine match) for that entity. Since the entity exists and will have the ability to point out flaws or mis-truths or problems with the entry, it drives people into a tizzy because here an authority exists who is disputing aspects of the entry. Then we get into the problem of whether Wikipedia's promise of being a comprehensive source of information is so compelling that there is nothing short of direct legal injunction that would pry a piece of information from its ranks. As I have spoken at length about both online and in presentations, one merely has to get the ear or the heartstrings of the Wikimedia Foundation to have an entry stubbed, protected, or Oversighted into tangentality. The event is rare in terms of a pure percentage, of course, but it has scads of precedent. Note I am not discussing illegal/libelous material, merely the recounting of verifiable facts and information culled from reliable sources. It can be done, it has been done, it will continue to be done, an option with precedent and an understandable safety valve considering Wikipedia's exploitability and artifically-weighed position in search rankings. While it is inspiring to some that Wikipedia's cacophonous ranks that they can fend off the onslaught of the world by banding together and keeping a certain point of view or piece of information alive in the face of others attempting to remove it, it can also be needlessly bitter. The advantage of hiding behind a legion of editors is that all manner of motivations can be extant to the same result, allowing everyone to claim the highest road among them. Such as it is with Daniel Brandt, who has spent years merely asking to be given the dignity of a basic entry, and who has been insulted, decried, banned, verbally assaulted, libeled and generally mistreated. Has he been nasty back? Surely he has; he went ahead and broke both the Seigenthaler and Essjay events to the general world, and Wikipedia implemented better policies for both. He should be thanked, but instead, he is pilloried and a simple matter of respecting a proper request is treated as if he is a cadre of government agents pointing guns at children. You give critics like myself fuel to burn our little fires outside, but it does you no good. Stub this and protect it and move on. --Jscott 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The man wants off of wiki... we shouldnt hold him on here just out of spite.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He meets all the criteria for inclusion, at least from what I can see. Wildthing61476 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP and human decency. Like Danny said, it is high time we as a community get over our obsession with Brandt and move on to building a real encyclopedia. Burntsauce 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP and the excellent points made by Slim Virgin. He really has no notability to speak of, and keeping him here without regards to his wishes seems just silly in those circumstances. Indrian 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia shouldn't become a vanity biography service. People who are notable should have articles, whether they want to or not, and people who are not notable shouldn't. Given the amount of verified press coverage cited in the article, this man is notable. No libel or unsourced negative comment is included, and Brandt has obviously tried hard to promote himself in multiple fora. If that means that he can't control all discussions of hem, such is life. FredCups 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Clearly sourced; clearly notable; and, as it stands, most of the article is not about Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I cannot see where anything about the article has changed since the last nomination, aside from our apparent political posturing. Article is, and as far as I can tell it always has been, neutral and verifiable, which are the two most important attributes of a proper article. And even if it wasn't neutral and verifiable, the overwhelming response would be "keep and clean up so it will be", if the subject were anybody other than Daniel Brandt of course, more "notable", or less. — CharlotteWebb 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I nominated Seth Finkelstein for deletion at the same time as this and for exactly the same reasons. This site does have precedents for courtesy deletions of biographies that satisfy neutrality and verifiability standards. Policy has recently changed to reflect that practice so I'm asking the community to make a modest expansion of that principle. This site hasn't been consistent in this area - as another editor commented, Ryan Jordan is a redirect to Essjay controversy even though Ryan Jordan received far more coverage in the media than Daniel Brandt. Perhaps WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT play a role in that paradox - we shouldn't base our decisions that way. What I propose is this: if no old fashioned dead-trees encyclopedia keeps an entry on a person then we'll do a courtesy deletion upon request. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Having a quick look at Britannica, here are some articles we would, upon request, be missing if that occurred: Art Garfunkel, Kent Hovind (and there's a good possibility that one would go missing), George Tenet, Richard Stallman, Jeb Bush (not kidding, they don't have a bio of him!), David Helvarg (a featured article)...and that's a very partial list. If we're even considering going down that road, I think it's good to know where it might lead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Comments:

1. This person is not so compellingly notable that we must have this article in spite of his objections.
2. We can redirect all the energy that's been expended on this one person and his article to ensuring all our other bios are encyclopedic and more carefully watched for mischief.
3. After deletion, this and previous AfD pages should be courtesy blanked per WP:BLP.
4. The article should be protected against recreation. There may come a time when circumstances change and we need a Daniel Brandt article because of a change in his circumstances but for now, we don't need any POINT-y recreations.

--A. B. ^(talk) 22:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 5

• Delete per Danny and Tony Sidaway. It's time to ask: "Does an article about Daniel Brandt make us a better encyclopedia?" Or, alternatively: "Would the absence of an article about Daniel Brandt be a significant missing chunk in an encyclopedia?" My answer is "no" to both counts. The article seems to be more of interest to Wikipedia "insiders" (i.e. us editors) than to the outside world (i.e. the casual reader perusing Google). Will his accomplishments persist 50 years in the future? We have a lot of biographical articles that could use some work, of people who have contributed more to society. The architects Purcell & Elmslie had a major impact on the Prairie School style, yet that article is only five sentences or so and is unreferenced. (And I need to get a better photo of the William Gray Purcell House, by the way.) We'd be better off without this article. Nevertheless, I'm sure this will go back to Wikipedia:Deletion review after it's done. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity biography of a NN individual. In this case the vanity is not Brandt's, but Wikipedia's. Quatloo 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well put. FNMF 01:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Short, sweet and 100% spot-on! 81.62.62.246 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)— 81.62.62.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Several reasons, including that we are better off without it; that he seems notable to us, but we characteristically exaggerate the notability of events having to do with Wikipedia itself; and, to be plain, because he wants it gone, and it doesn't hurt to be courteous, in cases of borderline notability. Danny, Quatloo and others also make good points. Let's be rid of it and move on with the work of building an encyclopedia. Antandrus (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we keep it and move on? And I don't even look at the events relating to Wikipedia when I consider this person sufficiently notable for an article, so it's not distorting my view. Maybe you're so concerned about appearing neutral that you're myopically focusing on the Wikipedia related issues and ignoring the other grounds for notability? Mister.Manticore 00:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We have been through this so many times. I think Daniel Brandt is still as notable as he was before and I don't see any new edvidence to suggest I change my opinion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (15th nomination) ought to be fully protected.) Gutworth (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep And protect from furher AfD noms? I have fortunately not been mired in this discussion ever before. It all seems like a bunch of vanity & distraction from the task of creating an encyclopedia. This is not an attacking article, Like Brian Peppers could only be. This is pretty much neutral fact with multiple reliable sources. So it comes down to a person saying they don't want an article on here? Seems like that would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia. It would then make Wikipedia a little less significant, as it would exclude articles just because the person asked that they not be included. How is that free and open flow of information? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, absolutely. I think we need to ask ourselves, how often is someone going to wonder why this article doesn't exist? A pertcentage of those who wonder this question will re-create the article. The experience of most commenters here with Brandt is heavily weighted toward Wikipedia; however, that is not all he is notable for. He is notable also for his criticism of Google and PageRank. This is where I first heard of him, and it was likely before I'd ever heard of Wikipedia. Brandt will continue to be a notable figure in the online community, unless he suddenly takes down his websites. Why would we not have an article about such a figure? -- Renesis (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Recreation isn't a reason not to delete. If the article were to be deleted, Daniel Brandt and other variations on his name can be protected titles. --BigDT 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not a solution at all. We protect titles that are being recreated abusively. Brandt and his work are a topic that many, many more over time are going to consider important and wonder why we lack coverage. -- Renesis (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Readers wonder why coverage is lacking or insufficient regarding topics of actual importance, not the Daniel Brandts. Quatloo 03:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Not so much "recreted abusively" as "recreated": protected titles are not some extreme measure, but merely an extension of WP:CSD#G4. While satisfying the curious whims of our readers is a good idea, there are a couple of pressing issues. Gracenotes^T § 03:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You should read CSD G4 then, which states recreation of deleted material (not "titles"), which, it should be clear, I am not talking about. -- Renesis (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
          • All that I said was that protected titles are an extension of WP:CSD#G4. Let me explain: if the result is to delete and not salt, then the article might be recreated. Then it would be deleted (G4). Then it would be recreated. Then it would be deleted. ad infinitum, but protected titles are another means to preventatively enforce G4, and protected titles should be considered an extension of it (or G4 considered the policy upon which WP:PT is based). I provided a policy-based justification for use of WP:PT, that's all. Gracenotes^T § 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This objection doesn't even make sense. There are plenty of internet memes (Brian Peppers, QZ, ceiling cat, etc) that don't have articles. We keep the titles protected. We don't say, "oh, well, someone might want to see a Brian Peppers article so let's go harass someone for their amusement". --BigDT 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Daniel Brandt is an internet meme? That's new. -- Renesis (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• KILL IT WITH FIRE per every Delete vote on this issue ever.Indiawilliams 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT WITH FIRE EXTINGUISHERS per every Keep vote on this issue ever. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Durova, and many others' reasons, and per WP:BLP. Yes he satisfies WP:N, but just because he's notable doesn't mean we need an article on him. Wikipedia won't be a worse encyclopedia without this article, he's asked to be removed, etc, etc. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The subject is featured in multiple reliable sources. He passes WP:V, and that's enough for me. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the most sensible comment in this whole AFD. I don't see why some of us are under the impression that we are an approval board, a notability committee, or anything else. Wikipedia has simple, community-consensus-based policies on notability for a reason, and Cielomobile is hits the nail right on the head here. -- Renesis (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Many editors have raised the WP:BLP flag here, but having reviewed the meticulously well-sourced article (26 seperate references in all) I do not see any such violation. Brandt is noted not only for his commentary on Wikipedia, but his accountability and inteligence efforts as well. Is it a sad state of affairs that more than ninety nine percent of our other articles are worse off? Yes. Is that a valid reason to delete this one well-written, BLP-compliant article about a notable person? No, and to do so would be a detriment to the project. RFerreira 06:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing more than a glorified conspiracy theorist. I'm opposed to letting Wikipedian's having their own articles (Unless they're like Brad Pitt or GWBush or something...) & this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia. If the user hadn't been active on wikipedia itself, I doubt this article would have exsisted or made it this far as long as it has. Oh, & I agree with almost every delete vote on all 14 of the AFDs - frankly, an article this unimportant isn't worth all the AFD space. Regards, Spawn Man 06:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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 07:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Jokestress, your reply is overly dramatic, and not entirely accurate.

  Consensus vs. Fiat. By any stretch of the imagination, you can't claim (even by vast imagination) there is a "Keep" consensus. Some of the most prominent, longtime administrators on Wikipedia have voted to delete (including the one who started the stub). Your inability to take in new information, your ignoring of the policy shift, and the wishes of many (if not most) people who have opined here, makes your opinion look like more of an indicator of a fiat, than consensus - at least to me.

  Legal definition of notablity. Use of the word "legal" isn't accurate, and it obscures the very real issue of inclusion of not-famous people, or "marginally notable people" (not really famous, but could merit a page". The new policy is to allow opt-out for marginally notable people, who see this as their main source of attention, and want to close it. That should be respected. You have a wikipedia page, but you are the other side of the coin. You aren't really famous (are marginally notable), but you have a page on Wikipedia - but you want it, and it can be loosely justified. In many people's eyes, you wouldn't be considered notable (maybe well known in a very, very special interest group, but that doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry). You have an IMDB page, but so do thousands of people with more experience in-front-of and behind the camera, who don't have wikipages. You are an active editor, and the page helps your work, and the rules are able to be stretched to accommodate you. Great - you aren't concerned about privacy. He is. Can you not see the other side of the coin? Don't even throw "what about x" at me, because I'd come back with "what about your heart", "where is your compassion", and "can you not just let it go".

  Inclusion vs. Deletion. These terms are irrelevant and obscure the real discussive issues. The real issues are "notability or not" and "hostage inclusion of marginally notable people to prove to them that we get to do what we want and don't care about individual personal rights to be anonymous or private)

  Policy vs. Ignore All Rules. Have you not read the discussion? Or noticed that the policy has changed?

  Public interest vs. Subject’s wishes. This is about the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Please elaborate on how a page on Daniel Brandt is enhancing the public interest. I'm all ears eyes.

  WHAT YOU AREN'T SAYING: That this is all about power. Yes, power. Not about information, or encyclopedias, or inclusion, or privacy, or respect (or the lack of it), but whether you, as an individual influential administrator, want to give up the power you/we have over this man's daily life, by removing the article, and giving him back some of the personal power we've stolen from him.

  WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT: Being right vs. Being happy. Apparently you would rather that this article be kept, to prove you right. You don't want to admit, by extension, by voting for delete, that having that article up was a mistake. And what is the result: Unhappiness on all sides. Brandt will continue to AfD until this page comes down, or he will sue, or God knows what else. (He put up people's real names, to get-even for them stealing his privacy - but hey, you don't care, because you are 100% open about your life, identity, and history. What if you weren't?) All of the other options are disruptive, time-wasting and for what? Just so we can prove that we can hold a man hostage on the basis of the fact that he gave a couple of interviews? That we assert that his struggles to be free of us only justify further his entrapment? Please. 81.62.62.246 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC) — 81.62.62.246 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment, I'm not sure why you feel the need to SHOUT your points but you seem to be missing the point, he is notable and the article is sourced and verifiable, and that is pretty much all that Wikipedia should work on when looking at articles, particulary biographies. He meets BLP standards so what is the problem, 81.62.62.246? You seem to be implying that this wikipedia entry is making Mr Brandt unhappy, really? And then to suggest that he will avenge this misdeed by blackmailing all Wikipedians (Brandt will continue to AfD until this page comes down, or he will sue, or God knows what else. (He put up people's real names, to get-even for them stealing his privacy - but hey, you don't care, because you are 100% open about your life, identity, and history. What if you weren't?)), is that really a reason to to delete a page? I think not. Darrenhusted 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Reply: Darren - Assuming you aren't a spa - you are a complete newbie. You've not edited one article in your five months as a Wikipedia, which is very suspicious to me. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. . Have you even read the history on this? As a newbie, I'd guess "no". Also, you wouldn't have read the entire dialogue above, in which I've been very active - again I guess "no". The main point is that the BLP policies have changed, for marginally notable people, so that if they feel harassed by the BLP, it comes off. This is to avoid problems. My highlighting of the problem-avoidance aspect and your response brings to emphasis the "war like" aspect of the Brandt debate. There are those who don't want to be bullied by Brandt, and that is a normal response to say "you can't make us" (it also sounds like an 8 year old conversation, I hasten to add). Personally, I think that there is too little focus on the damage-avoidance aspect of things. We have a general "no legal threats" policy on this project, but that doesn't mean that legal actions aren't possible. The Fuzzy Zoller case proves that editors can be sued, and over time, it is surely to be the case that more will be sued, and probably not only for vandalism (in the Zoller case), but also for libel or privacy issues. And when that happens, you are no longer anonymous - courts can subpoena your IP or email (in the Zoller case, WP handed them right over). You are in the UK, but you could be sued from another country. That's already happened (an Australian court made a judgement on a case that was honored by the U.S. defendant, Dow Jones). So you can start with the argument of "courtesy" to head-off future potential legal problems, or you can be stubborn and stick to your guns. But I go back to the age-thing. Your user page indicates someone very youthful - and when you are young, you not only don't worry much about privacy, but you don't take real world threats (like legal ones) very seriously. Your edit history, and your reply to me indicates that you know nothing about this longstanding case. This is actually pretty serious stuff. If you are really as new as you look, you are walking into (and commenting uninformed on) a two year long problem, with real legal and other realities tied to it. 81.62.62.246 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)— 81.62.62.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment, I thank AnonEMouse for their reply but I'll add my own comment here as well, I'm not an SPA, and I note you removed the SPA tag from your comments so I have SPA tagged most of the SPA IP addresses I can see on here, as for so called legal concerns or me readin/not reading the other AfDs, I have read this one, and in one of the earlier sections a summation was provided for other AfDs, and most were started by SPAs and so I didn't feel the need to read them all. I'm not a newbie but I note that given the different IP 81 addresses on this page you are, I don't care if you are Mr Brandt or a person who knows him, but what you are is a gamer, trying to game this AfD, I just wanted to add my vote and my views to this AfD, as I have done many times in the past. The article should be judged on its merits not the endless AfDs, particularly the ones started by SPAs like yourself. Darrenhusted 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Official Warning The irony of someone who hasn't logged in, and is editing from an IP address whose contributions are limited to this article, complaining about Wikipedia:single purpose accounts is overwhelming. Meanwhile note that Special:Contributions/Darrenhusted show plenty of main page edits. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that if I'm not addressing Mr. Brandt, this is at least an acquaintance. Mr. Acquaintance, you are commenting here by courtesy, due to this article not being at least semi-protected. Any administrator would be within their rights to semi-protect this discussion, thereby restricting it to editors; note that User:Daniel Brandt has been banned from editing Wikipedia, by our founder, and we are allowed, if not encouraged, to treat anyone acting as him, as him, and enforce that ban, including deleting all your arguments here and preventing you from making new ones. We are not doing so in this debate on the theory that perhaps you have useful, constructive, arguments to make, which is known as assuming good faith. Making ad hominem attacks on the editors that disagree with you are not those useful arguments. It is bad enough when you argue that editors younger than a certain age are not qualified, but making spurious claims of single-purpose editing is going way too far. Argue about the article, not about the editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Reply to so-called 'Official Warning': I'm a regular user who hasn't logged in, which is, I suppose, a spa, if you want to get really, really technical. Not logging in for a controversial debates is not illegal, unless you use it for vote-stacking. Neither is a spa See WP:SPA. Even having a secondary account isn't illegal (which technically, this is not - I've just not logged in) , if it is used to protect your identity - unless it is used abusively. I could never speak freely if I were under my own login, which has not voted. What personal attack did I make? But I made one small reference, assumed good faith and moved-on to discuss substance. What is *this* but an ad-hominem attack. Your biggest problem with me is that I disagreed with you above, and discredited your arguments. The reason I didnt use my login here is that I know how things work here, and I dont want to have to cope with retribution wiki-attacks from people under my real login for the rest of my Wiki-life. So unless you have anything to say about the useful information I provided to DH, I close with "thanks for accusing me of being DB" (lol - do a checkuser on me, please!) and "thank you for accusing me of making attacks I didn't make". And thanks for the comment about "the irony is overwhelming". Oh, the hubris! Come on. This isn't statecraft, people, this is an online encyclopedia. We all need to lighten up a bit. Even when arguing.  :) 81.62.62.246 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)— 81.62.62.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Are you serious? As much as I hesitate to engage you again, 81, do you really not see the highly inappropriate statements you have made about the other editors' inability to "see the truth" (i.e., see things your way) or to be both compassionate and reasonable in their proper measure? When you haven't been downright insulting, you have been either suspicious or patronizing, and I'm not even talking about your statements to me in Sections 2 and 4, some of which you altered without notice (because they are even more inflammatory than what now appears in the transcript). Here's what a cursory quote-mine of your comments on this AfD reveals; the following are responses to various "keep" editors: "This is just silly [...] That's just dumb." "if you must persist in being ridiculous keep the damned article..." "Mindboggling that a 17 year old person feels he has the right to dictate the course of a 49 year old man's life." "This is about the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life." "Apparently you would rather that this article be kept, to prove you right. You don't want to admit, by extension, by voting for delete, that having that article up was a mistake." "Have you even read the history on this? As a newbie, I'd guess 'no'."

Shall I go on? Any one of these inappropriate statements should merit administrative attention; I fully concur with AnonEMouse's "so-called" (to use your words) official warning. I realize I am opening myself up to more suspicion and mistreatement on your part, but if you are so concerned with courtesy as you have represented yourself, please take the warning seriously, review the statements I have quoted from you, and - if you can find it in yourself to do so - apologize to the editors whose competency you have questioned. Your statements are really just being counter-productive, and I say this as someone actually interested in the fairness of this process. ◄Zahakiel► 14:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I've been provocative here, no question. Very devil's POV.  :) In Zah's case, I was under the impression that we'd sorted things out. I've said things that others haven't pointed out - some of it probably helpful, and some of it that probably rankled/irritated people. But seriously: Everyone here is afraid of their own shadows (or of being attacked for non-conformity). For the record, the comment about age was contextualized about privacy sensitivity elsewhere. And to be frank, quite a few of the one-liners of editor comments are pretty nasty, so let's hold up some mirrors to people other than me. I mean, people here have called Brandt an asshole on this page, and worse things on other pages (and no, I'm not Brandt, and I don't know Brandt, but I think that after two years, we are all "acquainted with" Brandt), so let's try to have a bit of levity here. 81.62.62.246 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)— 81.62.62.246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The matter between you and I is indeed settled. This does not mean I am content to watch you attack other people who disagree with you. I don't see very much "conformity" on many people's part here, so I'm really not sure who these editors are who are afraid of their own shadows. Also, I am not sure why you are asking for levity, when you were the one who raised the issue of this matter potentially affecting a real person's life - a comment I happen to agree with. But finally, I am trying very hard not to read your words the way they seem most obviously taken... is your argument, "Other people are behaving badly, so why are you picking on me?" You insult other editors because of their perceived ages, yet when you are called to account for it you make the absolute schoolyard argument that other people's bad behaviour should excuse or mitigate yours? Yes, other people have been nasty. I don't like it when some voters assume that all the "keeps" are done out of spite, or ignorance as to what constitutes a "real encyclopedia." I don't like it when some voters assume that the "delete" votes are all based upon an ignorace of the policy shift's implications or because they are afraid of retribution from Brandt. I would hope the closing admin. gives those kinds of votes precisely the weight they merit, but I can guarantee you that if any of those one-line editors was as persistent as you, they would draw the same attention to themselves as you now have. Again, please take the warning seriously. ◄Zahakiel► 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to quit yesterday anyways, after our conversation, but someone else answered me back and I felt a need to reply (and then found something else to day, and well, you know how it is....). I am pretty much done here, anyways, and I take the point about diminishing returns, so let's just call it a day. Global apologies to all for any and all offenses. Best, 81 81.62.62.246 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)— 81.62.62.246 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, barely notable piece of spiteful wikicruft. --Coroebus 11:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Durova and SlimVirgin. Dr.K. 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Good lord. After the last AFD, I put this on my watchlist jokingly, not thinking that it would ever be created. It has. This is ridiclous. We need to keep it. We try to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, and we set certain standards. We have multiple reliable sources. We are writing an unbiased article. If Mr. Brandt doesn't like that, then too bad. We are not writing anything that has not been published elsewhere. I will be watching this, this, this, this, this, and this too, and I will express my support for keeping this article in all of those cases. Abeg92contribs 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just in case this is closed as "delete", you might want to add the first few DRV's to your watchlist, as well. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, all those fanatical delete-voters... Gracenotes^T § 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Given that WP:BLP has no "delete because the subject is a control freak" clause within it that I'm aware of and the subject is actually somewhat notable to begin with -- he's certainly doing his best to make himself so -- it's a straight-up keep. --Calton | Talk 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep This AfD is different from previous AfDs of this article in at least one important respect: we now have enshrined in policy that admins should give some weight (presumably non-zero) to subjects who wish to have their articles deleted. The notion that this should have at least some measure has at this point has both a consensus of editors behind it and reflects prevailing practice. However, despite this change, the result is the same. Daniel Brandt is too notable not to be included in Wikipedia. He meets WP:N for at least four separate items: namebase, the government cookies, his work with google, and his work with Wikipedia. Brandt is so notable that when one searches his name into googlenews one always has at least one link to him from the last week or (see this week which has two [13]). Jimbo has said to Brandt "You are a prominent person whose work has been noticed in major media outlets, and as such, there seems to be no good reason for us not to have an article about you" and while Jimbo is not a deity we should take his opinion seriously. The best argument made against him being notable was the NYT description of Brandt that SV has pointed out. However, it seems to me to be simply the NYT referring to Brandt by what his day-job is and not an indication that they think he was a private individual or that he wasn't notable. Brandt's desire to not have an article should not receive much weight because he has given multiple interviews and continues to give interviews. As some people observed, Brandt has gone so far as to give recent interviews to web-based publications. Between that, the fact that Brandt has stated he would have no objection if he controlled the content, and the large variety of different things which Brandt is notable for, the weight of his not wanting an article does not overide his notability.

There are a number of arguments made both for and against deletion which should be given little or no weight: first, claims that the article has not been well-sourced are simply not consistent with reality and demonstrates that those people are commenting without having looked at the article. Second, claims that we should keep this article out of spite or because Brandt has himself pushed people into the public spotlight are immature. Third, comparisons to how the Essjay article were handled or not have also been given little weight because they 1) rely on the othercrap does/does not exist (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) and 2) ignore that the Essjay situation was a fundamentally unique situation. Fourth, claims that the article should be deleted because of it being "self-referential" or per WP:ASR have been discounted. We have articles on Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia. I strongly urge people making such arguments to read WP:ASR and note that it is a style guideline not an article content guideline. Furthermore, this is related to the point that many have made that Brandt's notability has little connection to Wikipedia. Fifth, claims that we should keep or delete because it has gone through n prior discussions for large n are irrelevant. Sixth, arguments that we should keep the article since it will be likely recreated holds no water since we could easily protect the page.

In summary, there is therefore one crucial question: does Brandt's desire to not have an article that he can't control overide his notability? Given that Brandt has acted and continues to act as a public figure such as giving interviews and such and given that he is notable for not just one event but for at least four separate interelated matters, his concern is of insufficient weight to justify deletion. JoshuaZ 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Brandt simply does not wish an article he cannot control. Stillstudying 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.