Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Daniel Brandt

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. Linuxbeak | Talk 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrator's sidenote: I have taken a look into a lot of these votes that were for the deletion. It's Brandt. This VFD was made in bad-faith and Brandt himself won't take "it's not going to be deleted" for an answer. Well, tough. It's staying. Linuxbeak | Talk 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel_Brandt

subject is non-notable Strangeland 23:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: nominator's first edit (I'd bet it's Brandt himself) Broken S 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps ever speedy keep - he's as notable as much of the crap here Doc ask? 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - A good thing this article is presented to AFD so it won't happen again. -- Svest 23:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
  • Keep. Lots of (verifiable) notability in article. Subject of article does not want this entry in Wikipedia. See article history and blog entry concerning his attempts to have deleted. Doesn't meet speedy delete criteria for deletion request by author. ERcheck 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination for deletion. Subject of article, as well as his creation Namebase, is definitely notable. - Sensor 23:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme "Database of Enemies" Keep. How will we know who Google or Wikipedia hates without this article? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but not speedy. If we speedy keep it will give him more ammunition. Broken S 23:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both notable and verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete/merge with Google Watch. To the extent that Brandt is notable it seems to be largely because of Google Watch, which I don't think is notable enough in itself to justify an entry on its (co)founder. Nor does the rest of his bio or activities seems all that notable. Much of the GoogleWatch-related material will have to be merged into Google Watch anyway, which will lead to substantial duplication. Brandt's antagonism with Wikipedia over this article should not substantially affect our judgement on whether he is notable; but the fact that Brandt does not wish to have a Wikipedia entry should not either lead to the perverse judgement that that opposition in itself is enough to justify keeping it. Rd232 talk 23:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to weak keep after more sources on notability outside GoogleWatch (see article). Rd232 talk 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If he was just the founder of Google Watch, I'd vote delete or merge. But he has a lengthy history of activism which has been covered at various points by important publications, including the New York Times. A minor figure, but a public figure nonetheless, and certainly more notable than many of the random professors who end up with article stubs. Gamaliel 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per bad faith nom. --Isolani 00:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment as has been noted above, see his desire to not have a wikipedia page on himself, considering it an invasion of privacy [1] jnothman talk 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
A person who does not wish to be a public figure probably should not talk to reporters from the New York Times. Gamaliel 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone else, especially in light of likely bad-faith nomination. Kudos to Brandt for finally trying to work within the system, though, rather than simply going straight to Jimbo and throwing legal threats around. Note that precedent for keeping articles like this abounds: Ashida Kim has survived two AfDs in the last two months.--chris.lawson 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ...... the Wikipedia page about Brandt focuses mainly on draft dodging, Google-Watch, and Brandt's enemies. Because of this, a good case could be made in court that, unlike a magazine article, something like Wikipedia that carries the gravitas of a REAL encyclopedia (at least in some naive readers' minds) can perform a spin-doctoring sort of character assassination by focusing almost entirely on these negative things. I don't think he is going to EVER going to let go of this, so it might behoove Wikipedia to honor his request to delete the page, and save everyone involved a lot of B.S. down the road. This "he's a public figure and so we should be able to print whatever we want about him" line makes it sound like you people think you're reporting for a muckracking newspaper, not editing an encyclopedia. (Of course, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a definitive reference work, and how can you have a definitive reference work whose pages get completely rewritten twenty times a day, by anyone and everyone, from preteens to the mentally ill?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.217.117 (talk • contribs)

(This appears to be a Brandt sockpuppet again, jucifer 06:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

    • Excuse me, Jucifer, but just who the fuck do you think you are? You've continually removed every single change I've made to the Brandt page and continually call me a "sockpuppet for Brandt" even though BRANDT HIMSELF DELETED my version of the page I spent well over an hour trying to clean up. Apparently in YOUR mind, anyone who posts anonymously must automatically be Brandt! I see no reason not to post anonymously, especially with all the B.S. that is flying around here. Also, any retard could take a moment to ascertain that my IP address is from BellSouth, which does not serve Brandt's home state of Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.217.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep he is notable, and that is the main criteria. --Rogerd 05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Certain Keep I merely add my voice to the many great thinkers above. I base my rationale for this tricky descision on the fact that Brandt is more notable than this guy, more inteligent than this guy, as virile as this guy and as good as with puppets as this guy. This guy is notable - more so than any of those guys IMHO. Oh, there does seem to be a real abundance of bullshit about charachters from various lame-assed fantasy games. Can someone delete all that nonsence please! jucifer 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly notable.--Nicodemus75 06:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If he's notable, then Wikipedia should address his concerns rather than pissing him off, or else it's bad long-term juju. If he's not notable, this should never have happened. No one is addressing the issues he has raised: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wikinot.gif 4.230.177.157 07:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Note: this was 4.230.177.157 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.--chris.lawson 07:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly notable. Sorry Brandt but the fact that you don't like how wikipedia works doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on you and/or our article shouldn't be editiable by anyone just like all our other articles. I will add the page to my watchlist and revert any vandalsim or POV edits. I'm sure plenty of other wikipedians will do the same. That is all that is necessary to keep the article neutral and non libelous IMO. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: bad faith and process: those remarking on a "bad faith nomination" do not appear to have read Talk:Daniel Brandt sufficiently, where I repeatedly suggested the article be AfD'd (to settle the issue either way) and others appeared to agree. Again, that the nominator may be Brandt and that Brandt has pissed us off collectively is not a sufficient reason for us to ignore our own procedures and guidelines and precedents on inclusion criteria. We should avoid the impression that we are looking for reasons to justify the original article creation (in order to defend Wikipedia's actions in the face of external criticism), rather than treat the case neutrally. Rd232 talk 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: notability1: juicifer compares Brandt to two fictional characters (for which there are specific notability guidelines: Wikipedia:Fiction), but relevant for Brandt is Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Juicifer also says of Brandt, without any sourcing, that "he is as virile as [porn star] Dave Cummings and as good as with puppets as [actor] Edgar Bergen." This "justification for vote" is as unsourced as it is frivolous. Rd232 talk 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: notability2: The major thing Brandt seems otherwise known for other than GoogleWatch is namebase.org. "Daniel Brandt" +"namebase" gets 4 hits in LexisNexis (all fairly minor refs, eg a footnote ref to namebase newsletter as a source), with a further 5 that mention it in passing where the focus is on GoogleWatch. namebase alone gets a couple more hits (40), but many are to a company of that name, and the few that aren't are not enough to suggest namebase should have an entry, let alone its founder. Rd232 talk 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • More sources (see article) suggest Brandt probably does (perhaps weakly) meet Wikipedia notability standards. Rd232 talk 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rd232: Holy Suffrin' Moses! I was just kidding around. i felt able to do that because he is so self evidetially notable that I don't know howto give you any more! "Daniel Brandt" (with the quotation maRKS) gets arount 70,000 results. Really man, relax, calm down and take that "wikibreak" you have been promising yourself. :-) jucifer 15:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but not speedy. Google-watch makes Brandt notable, whether he likes it or not. Superm401 | Talk 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Brandt. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Minor, but well within notability bounds. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:. This is a rigged election. User Daniel_Brandt has been blocked for the next week, and cannot defend himself except on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Daniel_Brandt page, which no one reads. 4.230.162.141 01:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Actually he isn't blocked. If you look here [2] you'll see that a 7-day block was added (and is mentioned on his talk page) but it doesn't take effect because another block (namely my own) was added first. For a discussion on this see User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu#Daniel_Brandt and my talk page. Either way it wouldn't be entirely rigged, his comments couldn't overcome this many votes. Broken S 01:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, he is blocked. I just asked him to try voting, and he said he was blocked. Interesting standard for a fair election: "Either way it wouldn't be entirely rigged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.174.128 (talk • contribs) 21:09, November 6, 2005
    Hmm, odd (I guess the system doesn't work the way i thought it did). Alright I'll unblock him then, but if he acts up he'll just get blocked again. Broken S 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    By the way this isn't an "election" or even (technically) a vote. We are seeking a concensus. Broken S 02:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, by publishing his website and granting interviews he has made himself a notable Internet figure. Rhobite 01:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Cabal Keep There is no cabal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yippee, I'm unblocked. I unconsent, or whatever.... Daniel Brandt 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He is notable, if barely so. Him not wanting an article here about himself is no reason to delete this. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because how is the Wikipedia conspiracy against Daniel Brandt ever going to get any of its important work done if the article gets deleted? Nohat 04:24, 7 November 2005 (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.