Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Brandenburg

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 I'm closing this as a keep. After discounting one newbie I get 13 keep to 6 delete votes. I'm further discounting several delete votes. One admits it needs a rewrite, but vote to delete anyway (articles that can be fixed with a rewrite aren't deleted). Another claims that being a CEO at three companies is not notable without explaining why that would be (there's several valid articles about people who are CEO of just one company). The article may using some questionable press release-based sources now, but reliable sources are available as several keep voters have pointed out. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Brandenburg

Bryan Brandenburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable--fails WP:BIO and is an example of WP:COI. Web references are either brief articles by the subject himself or interviews about the companies he's worked for. He does have a spiral-bound book available from Amazon.com--but it has a sales rank of 1,864,077. Probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Was prodded back in October, but the notice was removed without comment. Dallben 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

— Dallben has made about half of his edits on this topic. Stanlys212 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This editor appears to get his jollies about questioning my intentions. All right, I admit it: this is really a Single purpose account and has been all along. That's right! I only created it to attack this page....erm, and also to do about 75 other edits on completely, um, unrelated topics. The word is out—you can post it to your newsletter (along with that exclusive interview with Brandenburg that you've been waiting to publish). Anyhow, I thought I might mention that Stanlys212's pointed observation doesn't seem to be true anymore. Dallben 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: - Stanlys212 has been spamming editors about this AfD, requesting that they "way in" on this "notable enough" article. This is not that editor's first attempt to hamper and disrupt this AfD. Doc Tropics 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability is somewhat borderline and the article could use some clean up, but the subject is far more worthy of an encyclopedic entry than, well...I won't go there. But all things considered, I prefer to err on the side of inclusion in this case. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - see my comment below. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would like some clarification--I'm a bit of a newbie and listed this page because it was flagged as unencyclopedic (See Talk:Bryan Brandenburg). From my reading of the notability guidelines, this topic clearly fails. I couldn't find any articles actually about him; rather, just articles with short quotes by him answering questions about companies he's worked for. The articles I did find are trivial and seem more like press releases than anything else.

WP:BIO states "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."--I've looked and I just can't find anything like that, so I think it's clear this subject fails this criterion. Looking at the other criteria, I can't see any evidence that this subject "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [his] specific field" or that he's "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [his] work." Walking through all of the tests, I can't see any evidence that this subject is even remotely close to the underlying principles of the WP:BIO guidelines--which is why I posted the article up for discussion.

Still, I'm new here, so if I'm way off the mark here I'd like to make sense of it. So, just to clarify, in practice are individuals deemed biographically "notable" by comparing them to existing articles in the encyclopedia? I ask this because that is how I interpret the last comment and I'd like to know about the practical guidelines with respect to notability. To me, the written guideline seems to set a standard (albeit a fuzzy one) which is miles away from "keep articles if they're clearly better than others you've seen." Dallben 06:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Ack, I've been outed! The truth is, I'm a closet Brandenburg fan. I had a Commodore 64, back when it was cutting edge technology, and as a result, I was supporting an article which really didn't meet standards as described by the nom. I have stricken my original comment and reversed my position. Dallben should be commended for making a strong original nomination and for following up with such extremely well-reasoned and well-written support. And this, from a self-professed newbie? Keep up the good work! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nice little sarcastic roast. I had to laugh :-D—and I loved the jabs at both my intelligence and my newbie status! Anyhow, I figured I should be clear that I wasn't trying to bite at you, Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle}, I just wanted to understand how this process really works—so that in the future I don't nominate articles for deletion that shouldn't be (thereby wasting people's time and taking up space on the AfD pages). I've been reading and using Wikipedia for about two years now and recently decided I ought to try and get more involved. So, I read most of the guidelines and dove in. Well, that's where I'm coming from—no hard feelings and sorry if I came across as biting; I wasn't intending to. Dallben 18:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• (I struck out part of the above entry, since, after clarification, it turns out I was misinterpreting Doc Tropics's intentions :-P. Kudos to him for being so nice about it. Dallben 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

• Keep - From the WP:BIO guidelines: (Brandenburg was CEO/Partner of Zygote - over 90% of google hits on zygote appear to be from Brandenburg era)

- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person: Brandenburg in Forbes Magazine - Scientific Visualization

SIGGRAPH Interview

3D solar system article

Renderosity interview with Brandenburg

Digital Media Designer

MacWorld

Brandenburg's company support for education

Brandenburg in DCCCafe Interview - Scientific Visualization

Brandenburg in Digital Media Designer - Virtual 3D Heart Model Story

China Medical Device Industry Article

CEO Interview

New story Indonesia

Mac Forever Interview

Yahoo Brazil

Spanish Medical News Article

Digital Media Designer News Story

CG Society News Article

French Biotech News Article

Chinese medical article

Spanish News Article on 3D Heart

Chinese virtual reality article

Biotech News Article China

Hong Kong Webexpert marketing article

Creative Pro

Open Source Article China

Creative Mac Interview / Bryce

Yahoo China

French Linux article

Corporate Media News 3D Female Anatomy

Clue (computer game)

Medgadget

Financial News - Germany

Nanotechnology News

Biotech Article China

Investor's Business Daily

Bryan Brandenburg's profile at MobyGames

Bryan Brandenburg at the Internet Movie Database

- The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

CEO of three major companies:

 Sculptured Software  
 Engineering Animation, Inc.
 Zygote Media Group

Alternative test - Google 555 hits - Compared to most video game programmers, 10-15x. A number of the game programmers listed in this category look like they worked for one of Brandenburg's companys.

I'm a newbie like User:Dallben, but Bryan Brandenburg is one of the grandfathers of the Utah game industry so I thought I would cast my vote. Linux_monster

Comment – 71.116.216.221 Thanks for your input! I went through the links that you posted (many of which are listed in the article itself) and did a content analysis on each one—for brevity I've posted the results on the article's talk page, so you and others may review it there. Unfortunately, one can't claim that Brandenburg is the primary subject of any of the linked articles, which is one of the main reasons I nominated the article for deletion.

Regarding the Google test you did, while around 500 hits is comparitively large with respect to most video game programmers, most U.S. university professors yield at least 10,000 Google hits. So, it is hard to claim that "a search for the subject produce[s] a large number of distinguishable hits". Additionally, it's hard to claim that Brandenburg's companies are major, since two are now non-existent and none of them were/are publicly traded.

Comment – Dallben Actually, Sculptured Software was acquired by Acclaim Entertainment, a publicly traded company. Engineering Animation, Inc. who acquired his second company, was a publically traded company. Founding two computer game companys that were acquired by publicly traded companies is notable in itself. User:Linux_monster 03:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment—I think I should probably clarify (lest ye accuse me of mudslinging) that I am not stating that Brandenburg is not notable in general—really, every person is within their realm of friends and associates. Rather, I'm claiming (and I feel the data supports this) that he is not notable with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. My comment on public trading was simply supporting evidence for the claim that this article fails WP:BIO. (As a side note, just being publicly traded doesn't actually make a company notable according to WP:CORP.)

Anyway, just for you Linux_monster and because I'm a glutton for punishment, I browsed the entire contents of a Google search for Bryan Brandenburg in case I missed some big story about him. In my perusal, I found out that Google's hit estimate was off (there are actually only around 215 distinct pages indexed) and that some of those hits relate to other Bryan Brandenburgs. For example, there is/was a candidate for county commissioner in Michigan and a Bryan Brandenburg Co. that existed in California in the 1920s. However, in the results there are no significant independent articles about this Brandenburg. In fact, the vast majority of articles that mention him are about Zygote Media Group, a company whose current websites don't even make historical mention of Brandenburg (As evidenced by this Google Search—note that although some links appear, Brandenburg's name does not appear in any of the pages). So, if you feel this nomination is in error, please just produce the documents and references necessary to support the notability claim—I've done my best to find some and at this point I am confident that the article has been given an unbiased review. Dallben 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, that's my take on the available information. You state at the end of your entry that "Bryan Brandenburg is one of the grandfathers of the Utah game industry", which seems to indicate you're familiar with him and might know more about him. Do you know of any specific articles about Brandenburg or maybe a book (independent from him) that is written about him? If we could produce a set of independent and significant articles about his connection to the game industry, that might be a way to keep the article. The only Web articles I can find don't even mention he had anything to do with the game industry (except for his credit listings in games, of course). Dallben 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep; a really silly AfD nomination. Does need cleanup but certainly doesn't warrant deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs). 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for voicing your opinion–you seem adamantly opposed to the nomination, do you have any verifiable evidence for refuting it? It would be beneficial to have something that supports your claim. (Also, administrators please note that this user's talk page indicates several vandalism violations; while this is an IP address its user's prior reputation might need to be taken into consideration.) Dallben 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict, this is in reply to the IP comment), given the amount of research that went into this AfD, and the eminently reasonable discussion of it here, a summary of "really silly" seems a bit cavalier. Cleaning up the article will not enhance the subject's notability in any way. Doc Tropics 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since he has done quite a bit (and is one of the grandfathers of Utah's game industry—I knew him back in the late 1990s, but don't have any references to support my opinion). But some clarifications are in order: he wasn't CEO of Engineering Animation, Inc. (EAI). He was CEO of Software Arts International, which was acquired by EAI. At that time, he was made head of the SLC studio of EAI. Certainly a prominent figure of EAI, but not the CEO. Sculptured was a pretty significant video game developer and he was a founder of it. But I agree that all those articles that are listed that barely mention him or just Zygote should be removed. The articles he wrote could go in a "Bibliography" section. One last note, I think Brandenburg wrote most of the article himself. Don't know if that really matters, but I had to go back and remove gushing comments from the article from time to time. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Since Brandenburg falls far short of the notability guidelines, having an article separate from Sculptured Software seems unneccessary. Brandenburg is listed as one of the company founders in that article and any noteworthy contributions he made to the industry should be listed on the Sculptured Software article. Dallben 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But he did a great deal after Sculptured (EAI, Zygote). Why limit the discussion of him to there? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry if I was unclear—from your comments you seemed to be saying that his most significant contributing was in co-founding Sculptured Software. However, it may be equally appropriate to mention him in the pages for the other companies. Dallben 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I quick check press, stories,interviews Zygote Media Group Can't find zero but corporate listings on Zygote before after Brandenburg CEO. Wikipedia page Zygote Media Group says they take business since 1994. It not easy published stories or quotes at Forbes or Investor's Business Daily. When a magazine interviews game programmer, 95% of article and title is about game, not designer. I look at Dallben. Most effort to delete Bryan Brandenburg. Also SpamTwinkiesOreos. His first edit Spam. Maybe clue. Maybe he is 3dscience He spam unresourced comments Zygote Media Group page. Maybe he same time deleting old CEO. I think hidden motives. This not pleasant. 70.34.105.21 20:45 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sure this editor is trying to say something, I just have no idea what. Can someone translate this into English? Doc Tropics 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the author summarized his entry for us in his closing sentence, er, approximation of a sentence. Dallben 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• ""Keep"" per Frecklefoot Smurf noodle 03:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

— Smurf noodle has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment – Thanks for joining the discussion. I am interested in finding any evidence of Brandenburg's notability as prescribed my by Wikipedia's guidelines—do you have references for any such materials? This would be a great place to bring them up (or, if they're extensive, you could add them to the article itself and then mention the major update here). I noticed that your only edit has been to this talk page—please be aware that wikipedia is not a democracy. So, this venue is for dicussing (and possibly establishing the validity of keeping) this article, not for voting on it's inclusion/deletion. If you have access to any evidence which refutes the nomination please present it quickly, since an administrator will most likely make a decision about this article soon. Dallben 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed a little typo [oops :) Dallben 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)]

• Strong Keep per more factual assessment of links article's talk page and my additional analysis below.

Spanish site reprint of Brandenburg interview on Bryce

Chinese story on Zygote heart with quote from Brandenburg

AdNews that Zygote signs Brandenburg

Spanish press release on 3dscience with quote from Brandenburg

Article on human heart

German version of heart press release with quote from Brandenburg

Animation Artist article (Guy Wright) with quote from Brandenburg

French press release with quote from Brandenburg about Open Source project

Yahoo Spanish Financial News - heart press release. Quote from Brandenburg

China business news - Press release on launch of 3dscience.com

Another version of press release on Spanish business news site

Spanish medical site - Story on Female Anatomy - Quote from Brandenburg

Chinese coverage of heart with quote from Brandenburg

Game Group headed by Brandenburg - 4 pretty high profile games (Hasbro, Mattle, Soooby Doo, Animaniacs http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/eai-interactive/developed-by/list-games/

Open Source Article (Guy Wright) with quote from Brandenburg

DCCCafe story on Turbo Squid partnership

Article on Open Source models

http://www.vaitman.com/tr/it/?q=/customer-service/18010.php http://www.vaitman.com/tr/es/?q=/sales/7892.php http://www.vaitman.com/tr/fr/?q=/customer-service/18010.php http://www.vaitman.com/tr/jp/?q=/customer-service/18010.php http://www.vaitman.com/tr/ko/?q=/customer-service/18010.php http://www.vaitman.com/tr/de/?q=/sales/7892.php http://www.vaitman.com/tr/cn/?q=/seo/17966.php Looks like the bothered to translate his syndicated articles into Arabic, Italian, Spanish, French, Japanese, German,Korean, Chinese

Here's the full list

I knew Brandenburg at Sculptured which grew to almost 100 people, a very large group of indies. Avalanche Software were former programmers and sold to Disney. Sculptured was bought by Acclaim. Saffire was another company spawned out of Sculptured http://www.saffire.com/.

EAI Interactive was a pretty big deal. They did games for Disney, Hasbro, Mattel, Hannah Barbarra. Brandenburg was the top guy for the interactive division. He also did some outdoors thing with Karl Malone. Don't know much about that but published some books.

I don't know anything about scientific visualization and 3D but looks like he made his mark there too as an executive with http://daz3d.com/ and http://zygote.com/ / http://3dscience.com/ His articles are not my cup of tea, but they look widely syndicated.

Not sure what he's up to now, but I'm sure it will be big. His personal art gallery is pretty cool :) http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com/. Looks like a competitor to Zygote and maybe that's what this is about ;)

I almost never get involved with stuff like this, but Bryan Brandenburg gave me my start. I'll always remember him for that.

Stanlys212 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

— Stanlys212 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

weak delete. I can't find a notability guidline for businessmen, but I don't think being the CEO of 3 companies would be enough. The sources seem generally sparse and the article itself reads like a resume. BCoates 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

weak delete. I agree with the last. Certainly this requires at a minimum a major rewrite. Michaelbusch 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. /Blaxthos 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input—I'm glad that others are contributing. Could you offer any additional reasoning / input to the discussion? It would be helpful to have more supporting evidence or arguments for the various viewpoints. As you can see, we are all across the board on this one and solid reasoning is the best way to come to a consensus. Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. A Google News Archive comes up with 60 articles so there is enough third party stuff about him to warrant a keep. [1]. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for adding to this discussion. I noticed that the links resulting from the Google News Archive search match up well with those already listed in connection with this nomination. In fact, I can confidently state that all of these links appear to be press releases (mostly by Zygote Media Group), in which Brandenburg is quoted. WP:BIO states that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. So, given that these links are press releases of a company of which Brandenburg was the CEO, can you justifiably claim that these articles are published works whose source is independent of the person? In addition, can you claim that Brandenburg is the primary subject of any one of these articles? Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm finding he's one of the innovators of modern graphics gaming. Is CEO of Zygote Media Group. Being co-founder of Sculptured Software, the maker of some major A-list games, in itself shows notability. Macworld interviewed him on one of their webcast radio shows [2] and SIGGRAPH News inteviewed him too [3]. (yes, I see these are included in the stories of him cited above, but I found these on my own. :)). --Oakshade 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I have done a lot of searching in relation to this article and am curious if you can produce any sources related to Brandenburg's role in gaming (as implied by your opening sentence). The references that I can find are press releases about companies Brandenburg has worked for and I can't find any independent articles about his gaming contributions. In addition, could you specifically identify which of the WP:BIO guidelines (if any) these links support? I am a fairly new editor and am hoping to gain a better understanding of how accurate the guidelines are. Thanks. Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep KeepFirst let me start by saying that it is not helpful that the prod was deleted without comment and I concur with Dallben that its one reason for this article to be in AfD. That said, the subject's importance, the extent of reference materials on both him and the ventures he has been involved in, and involvement in the history of gaming and graphics is beyond dispute. One doesn't have to be Sid Meier to qualify for notability. I sense extreme Deletionism gone awry. I strongly disagree with users like BCoates since founding even one succesful company is notable. Endless blue 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for voicing your opinion—it will hopefully help this discussion to come to a resolution. I am sorry if this nomination appears to be Deletionism gone awry—please know that being a deletionist was not my intent; rather, a clearer understanding of the process and the validity of Wikipedia's guidelines. From my perspective, I saw something that was deemed unencylopedic, read the guidelines as carefully as possible, measured this article against those guidelines and found it more than just a couple of standard deviations from the mean.

So, this AfD ensued and it's been interesting. Still, I hold to my original reasoning—in fact, the experience in researching has only verified for me my claim that this article does not stand up to the Wikipedia guideline. But, since I'm a newer editor, I'm happy to concede the difference between a concrete guideline and a practical one. If you feel the guideline is wrong, express how and why, that way we all know where you're coming from.

That aside, it is helpful to know which claims fall within the concrete written guidelines and which do not. For example, you state that Brandenburg's "involvement in the history of gaming and graphics is beyond dispute," but I can find no significant references to his involvement in gaming and his verfiable involvement in graphics are press releases from companies in which he's been a prominent figure (and are therefore not independent of him). Given sufficient capital, any company can woo the press into printing something about them. So, since you are so adamant about this article being kept, can you produce references that explicitly fulfill the guideline? If not, what guideline are you actually using to justify notability and which references fulfill it? (Please note that I'm not trying to be contentious or to get you to change your vote—I'm more interested in understanding the foundation and reasoning of your argument). Thanks, Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The subject has been cited in a number of non-trival third party articles, include reliables sources like Forbes and MacWorld. That means that the subject confirms to the guidelines for notability in WP:BIO. The following quotation from said same guidline should explain it:

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
    • Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
    • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endless blue (talk • contribs).

Response—It is exactly this guideline, which is clearly not being met (at least, no articles have been reproduced yet). Here's my reasoning: let's dissect this guideline and use it to filter articles from being credible candidates:

• "The person has been the primary subject..." — the article in Forbes and the mention of his webcast panel interview (he was interviewed along with two other unrelated individuals) in MacWorld are great news…for Zygote Media Group and DAZ Productions, respectively. That is, the primary subjects of the articles are the companies, not Brandenburg. This is true for all of the cited sources.
• "...of multiple non-trivial published works..." — It is true, Forbes and MacWorld are non-trivial, but the articles in which Brandenburg's mentioned are.
• "...whose source is independent of the person." — This has probably the greatest effect on the claims. The vast majority of the links available clearly resulted from press releases made by the companies Brandenburg worked for. Therefore, it is unfair to claim these articles make him notable, because the articles are not independent of him.

That said, I am still awaiting a clear and cogent argument against my reasoning, which is based solely on the guideline. If you disagree with the guideline, then that's a different matter altogether. Since the beginning of this nomination, I've been searching and requesting for citations that really show notability. Give me the link to the Forbes article "Bryan Brandenburg: CEO" or anything like that and I think we'll have some verifiable information about Brandenburg, which we can legitimately include in this article (or even justify having an article with). Dallben 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will grant you that the Forbes article mentions him almost in passing. The MacWorld article definitely mentions him and is focused on his speaking event, so I don't agree there. However, I have a fundamental difference of opinion with you on how much of a distinction you can make between articles written about companies founded by people and articles written just about those people. Based on this logic, Steve Jobs could be considered non-notable since he's rarely mentioned outside of news about Apple or Pixar. Seriously, entrepreneurs are measured by the businesses they found, and its inevitable that those businesses and other ventures will be mentioend alongside their names in articles. I believe your intepretation of "primary" places too high a hurdle for notability. That said, I think my speedy keep vote was a bit over the top and I"ve downgraded it sine the point you make is valid (if exaggerated IMHO). Endless blue 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to agree with me that Steve Jobs is a very poor comparison to Brandenburg. Independent authors have written a myriad of books about Jobs—we're not talking about articles, but entire volumes. Therefore, Jobs clearly fulfills the guideline.

In addition, I'm not saying that we eliminate all information about Brandenburg from the encyclopedia—just that there's no need for an article about him. Other editors involved in this discussion have expressed concerns about its verifiability and content. So, if this article should be in the encyclopedia it would necessarily be significantly sparser than it is now; probably just a few sentences and some non-redundant references—in which case, why have it? As I see it, Brandenburg's name should appear in the articles for the companies he's worked for and all of the salient information about him kept there (i.e., what projects he was involved in, his major contributions, etc). One surprising factoid I learned recently was that Brandenburg worked for Zygote from January 2005 to April 2006[4]. This is surprising because almost all of the articles we can find about him are as Zygote's CEO. Anyway, I think if you can produce and article specifically about Brandenburg, or perhaps a more equivalent example than Jobs, I might be more inclined to see things your way. Cheers for your input. Dallben 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above point. Sharkface217 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have given my vote above. At this point, I wish to note that the article presently consists of roughly a half-dozen sentences and laundry lists of games the man has worked on, links to Wikipedia articles that do not exist, and a lot of external links of which roughly half seem only tangentially related to the man. So regardless of if the man is notable, the article needs a serious re-write. Recent activity by Stanlys212 has been entirely adding links, which is not what the article needs at this point. Michaelbusch 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, nn, sources from places of employment are useless, of course they're going to offer high praise, you think they're going to say "hey! we hired a dummy and here's his work!"? Nashville Monkey 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Did you actually read the article? I don't think so, because there are references from Forbes and MacWorld, among other references, which means it satisfies WP:BIO. Endless blue 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an arguement with you, I'm allowed to place my opinion, my opinion is he's nn, you are free to disagree. However, don't assume to know whether I did or didn't read an article before having the nerve to place an opinion. Nashville Monkey 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine, but your only reason given suggests that the only sources cited are "sources from places of employment..." which is misleading and reflects poorly on your point, especially given that in truth the article has references from multiple non-trivial sources. I just thought you might want the opportunity to make a better case, but hey, its your call! Endless blue 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets primary notability criteria: There exists articles in many reliable sources with this guy as the primary subject. Regardless of what he ever did it is moot. The sources exist to write an article, we can reference them. That is all that is required. In there interest of full disclosure, I was invited here by User:Linux monster to comment. And I am. Looking at the sources cited by the article itself, and by people who have listed them above, there are more than enough good, reliable sources to write a neutral article. The fact that the article, as written, is decidedly NOT NEUTRAL is not a reason to delete. NPOV (like COI) problems are clean-up issues, not delete issues. The subject of this article deserves a Wikipedia article, even if the current one is poorly written. Start it again, clean it up. But no reason to delete. --Jayron32 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you actually inspected the articles, like Dallben did? Only very few of them have Brandenburg as a primary subject. — mark ✎ 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Jayron. The list of articles includes major industry publications. The only reason this could conceivably have been AfD is because the article is suitable, in which case the person who AfD'd it might have done better to improve it, or suggest strongly on the talk page that someone do it..DGG 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you actually inspected the articles, like Dallben did? None of the articles from 'major industry publications' have Brandenburg as a primary subject. — mark ✎ 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I strongly feel that Brandenburg is noteworthy enough for a WP article. However, the article (in its current form) needs work. All that we have right now are six sentences, a list of contributions, and then a set of references/links. The article would be far more encyclopedic if the core was fleshed out a bit more to provide more complete background information, with the references inserted as necessary. If that were done, my vote would change to Keep. That having been said, I'd still prefer to keep this article and see somebody improve it. Seventypercent 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I do not feel he is notable enough, fails WP:BIO. In the interest of full disclosure, I was asked by Linux_monster to have a look at this AfD. — mark ✎ 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that his accomplishments add up to notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:12, 5 December 2006 (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.