Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (8th 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 WP:SNOWBALL keep. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Speedy delete. The person clearly does not want an article. Don't vote keep, because you think the subject is notable, because that has nothing to do with it. Vote keep for a better reason than that. I will remove any keep votes that give notability as a reason. Gorsh 14:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Why have an article about him if he doesn't want one? RedRollerskate 14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What if Bill Clinton decided he didn't want an article about him? Also, if I recall right, nominator doesn't get to "remove votes" from an afd page. This person's prominence has been well-documented in the seven prior afds. NawlinWiki 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Daniel Brandt is nowhere as notable as a former president. Not even close. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note This 8th afd is User:Gorsh's only contribution to WP. NawlinWiki 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Bill clinton has never came here and said he didn't want an article. However, if he did, then it should be deleted. We should only include biographies of notable people who want biographies of them. Gorsh 15:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This nomination (like all its predecessors) totally ignores Wikipedia policies. Speedy Keep. The subject's wishes have been, are now, and will continue to be irrelevant. The Brandt article will stay, as will Clinton's. All the sockpuppets in the world won't change that. Fan1967 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia policies are stupid. You're failing to see the stupidity in them. Gorsh 15:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
          • So all biographical article on Wikipedia are required to violate WP:VANITY? That makes LOTS of sense. - Richfife 15:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - The subject of an article gets 1 vote in an AFD just like everyone else. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE AN ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA. The editors as a group do, not Bill Clinton, not Daniel Brandt. Brandt is notable enough to warrant inclusion. His opinion has no more weight than mine or yours or NawlinWikis. - Richfife 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. We've done this AfD about one zillion times already. Do try and keep up. -- GWO
• Speedy Keep by my new favorite, WP:SNOW. Ain't gonna happen. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per previous AfD decisions. The subject of an article doesn't own the article; neither does the author nor any of the contributors. They can all have their say on AfD if required but their voice and their opinion is just as important as all of the other contributors.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Nom has not even placed a AfD notice on the article. The last 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AfDs, all keep. Notable. blue520 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nomination does not give a valid reason for deletion under wikipedia policy. Also the way I see it wikipedia is no different to the press at large. If someone asked the papers to stop publishing information on them would they oblige. Doubtfull and wikipedia should be no different Ydam 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Would you please stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia? Skinnyweed 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, obviously bad faith nomination... and that has nothing to do with "notability".--Isotope23 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Certainly a bad faith nomination if the nominator blatantly expresses an intention to delete keep votes with reasons that are unpleasant to him/her. The person in this article satisfies WP:BIO, 'nuff said. Agent 86 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above. Parsssseltongue 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Snowy keep per AfD 1-7. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per Agent 86 and WP:BIO, WP:N. Crum375 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability outside of wikipedia is not clearly established. Article is self referential. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. OK, let me give you a better reason. You're making yourself more notable every time you bash Wikipedia. Just as you claim the right to tell everyone about Wikipedia's "stupid" policies on your website, so Wikipedia editors should have the right to tell everyone what you are doing. If you're revealing the identities of so many Wikipedians...well, shouldn't we be entitled to reveal your identity? You just want to make yourself look good by trying to delete and cover up the facts about your life as an activist. You're selfish and you only want your viewpoint to be known, not the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia. Sorry, but once you put yourself in the spotlight, the truth will out. SCHZMO ✍ 18:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a juvenile argument. Wikipedia articles as retribution? I thought there was a policy about this at WP:NOT. Something about not being a soap box. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE bc I read the page for two minutes and can tell the guy is King Asshole and deserves no page here. Brjatlick 02:48, 20 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.