Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (6th 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 of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

This guy does not want an article on himself in Wikipedia, and so we should not have one. Please don't vote for keep based on notability, because notability has nothing to do with it. It should be deleted because this guy doesn't want an article. Houston, Texas 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep No valid reason to delete given. Notable person. Suspicious Afd nomination by User Houston, Texas whose ONLY contributions (5 edits only with 2 related to the afd itself) have been to do with the Daniel Brandt article Bwithh 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Bwithh, cleared up pretty much everything. Wouldn't suprise me if the user Houston, Texas is a sockpuppet.--Andeh 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Very possible. Houston, Texas is a brand new ID, created one minute before the AfD, with no other edits. Fan1967 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Speedy Close. We've been through this five times before. Nothing has changed. Fan1967 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Past AfDs 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and non closed 5th.--blue520 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Just like the last five times. Jokestress 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per above. -- Captain Disdain 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If this guy doesn't want an article, we shouldn't attack him by having one here. 64.12.116.67 02:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Google Watch, but count this as a delete vote instead of a keep one. Kotepho 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. That a prominent figure doesn't want a page about himself does not make him less notable or less verifiable. Whosasking 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is saying it does. All that's being said is that this article should be deleted because the person does not want an article, regardless of whether or not he's notable. 64.12.116.67 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You're ignoring Wikipedia's rules. The wishes of the subject are irrelevant. Fan1967 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No they're not. Quit being disrespectful to Daniel Brandt. 64.12.116.67 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I couldn't care less about Daniel Brandt, but it would be a totally unacceptable precedent. Suppose George Bush decides he doesn't like his article. Do we delete that one, too? Fan1967 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes. But he hasn't. 64.12.116.67 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • If someone's whim controls what we can and can't report, then Wikipedia can no longer be an encyclopedia. Unacceptable. Fan1967 02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes, it can still be a encyclopedia. It can include any encyclopedic topic that's not about a person that doesn't want to be included in it. 64.12.116.67 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
                • That's not an encyclopedia, that's part of an encyclopedia. Fan1967 03:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
            • This IP address, 64.12.116.67, is registered to America Online (AOL) and is shared by multiple users. Dcflyer 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason to delete given. This is a suspicious Afd nomination. Dcflyer 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dan Brandt's antics make him a notable crank--Cberlet 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: He doesn't want an article on himself on Wikipedia, yet he runs a wikipedia watch site, and is perhapse the most vocal critics of Wikipedia, tough beans, Wikipedia is not based on what people want us to cover it's what we should cover as an encyclapedia. Imagine if Dick Cheney or President Bush decided they didn't want to be featured on Wikipedia: deleting this article could be very dangerous to the future of Wikipedia. Deathawk 02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is a controversial figure. If by some act of God it does get deleted, it will just get created again. Anonymous defenders are doing him no favors by acting like grumpy old men. Danny Lilithborne 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Just as a figure has no choice as to whether it is covered by the news, it has no choice as to whether it is covered by Wikipedia, as long as the reporting of both remains solely factual and free of libel and defamation. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Independently verifiable information that is not defamatory, so tough luck. He has no proprietary interest in himself and has not the standing to stop people talking about him or posting accurate information that is not of legal significance. SM247 03:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nomination does not give a valid reason for deletion. Subject not wanting an article is not listed as a criteria for deletion Ydam 03:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - article is not defamatory, and to delete it would set a bad precedent. Sambo 03:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Maybe he should consider taking down the personal information of Wikipedians that he has put online before requesting that we remove a neutral page discussing him. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• NO. Do not bargain with him. Fan1967 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Radioactive keep. Please, please, please, please keep. Vitriol 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Daniel Brandt can throw all the fits he wants, unless the article is defamatory in some way, he doesn't get to decide. Ckessler 04:51, 5 June 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.