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

message: Many deletion supporters have said that this page is poorly referenced. This article has a reference for every contestable fact and includes many more references than an average article this length. Rather than abusing AfD by nominating this article for the fourteenth time, why don't we go and bring other articles up to this quality? We're wasting our time and the deletion supporters are gaming AfD by renominating until they get the result they want. We get your WP:POINT. - ElbridgeGerry  02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We? How many of you are there?  Please read WP:POINT and try to understand what it means.  If you think it's about trying to do something until you succeed, you have misread it. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Referencing is not the issue. WAS 4.250 03:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through the references, and found that he is a secondary reference in a few articles. That would be good supporting material for an article on a person who is otherwise notable. The lead sentence says he is "known" for his work on this and that but I disagree. Ironically there are people who are indeed "known" (sometimes unfavorably) who are not the subject of a Wikipedia article. A good example is this guy  .--Mantanmoreland 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Many deletion supporters have said that this page is poorly referenced.

message: While Arbcom does not make policy, part of its role is to clarify and interpret policy. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for clarification of policy

message: "a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors". Good luck with that. Piperdown 22:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I changed my vote from delete to keep after finding 3 RS's on the page that focused an article on Brandt himself. So under notability for BLP benchmarks applied to other BLP's, this one passes as notable and having sources for a BLP. While in Rome, follow Rome's rules. But......I have read some of Brandt's reasons for asking for a deletion (I would do the same), and the reasons he gives boil down to all BLP's (or dead biographies for that  matter) not just his. Anybody at any time can write some really evil crap about you on your wikipedia biography, and it can stay there and be googled for a very long time with no accountable editorial oversight. That is a legal powderkeg waiting to blow up whatever donations this endeavor takes in. Claiming that you promise that surely some kid in the school library in Cowtown, USA will be there in real time to ensure that defaming information won't be seen by anyone is a pipe dream. Good luck with that, wikipedia. Piperdown 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody anywhere in the world can write on the Internet, and they'll be googled.  Potentially, someone could even get into a higher page-ranking than normal.  So what?  If anybody has a concern about the accuracy of any information on them on a Wikipedia page, I fully support their right to get it corrected.  People are entitled to the truth being said about them, that's a given.  Since NPOV and RS are also foundation principles of Wikipedia, that shouldn't be a problem.  What they aren't entitled to is having Wikipedia say nothing.  That's censorship.  That's a problem.  Questions of vandalism are endemic to Wikipedia, but deletion of articles for being vandalism magnets isn't going to happen.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brandt's reasons for wanting the bio removed are not important. It's the fact that he wants it out is what (apparently) needs to be given some weight under the new BLP guidelines. What is more important to me is that he is just marginally notable.--Mantanmoreland 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you consider "more than marginally notable", please? What are your standards, and can they be phrased as a rule that we can apply without bias? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microcosm

message: Brandt has been known to vote delete using socks and many IPs in past AFDs. And he's doing it again. All the IPs who commented in this AFD are supporting deletion and insulting the keep voters with ageist comments. In short, it's disruptive. It's quite obvious they are Brandt socks. Even if they are not, they are single-purpose accounts. We should semi protect the AFD to prevent Brandt from disrupting it with socks. I have nothing against Brandt, and since the article is about him, he should participate in the AFD. But not disrupt it with socks. Maybe he should place his statement in a notice just below the nomination statement. --Kaypoh 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not stupid. If whoever closes this discussion does not read it multiple times, with a great degree of care and consideration and a careful eye for potential socks or SPAs, I have a nice troutslap for them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protect this AFD? 

message: And I don't know what "a complex merge" is, but how you can find a consensus for "a complex merge" escapes me. --BigDT 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing early just means it will be contested. Please can a responsibe admin ensure that this article does not close early. I can imagine nothing less appropriate than closing this debate after 3 days, SqueakBox 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it isn't 3 days ... it opened late at night on the 9th.  It's now early morning on the 14th UTC.  It has been just a tad over 4 days.  It should be open one more day and closed 24 hours from now. --BigDT 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec):yup, my mistake, confusing Durova's initial statement with the Wub's additional statement, SqueakBox 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think a new argument will emerge? As or 'it will be contested' - it will be anyway.--Docg 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its being contested is why we should stick to the letter of the law in this case, SqueakBox 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that if we wait a day, it won't be contested?--Docg 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean if we wait a day it wont be contested on the grounds of closing too early, on other grounds sure but lets reduce the contested possibilitiees as much as possible, SqueakBox 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well you first and rightly point out that there is plenty of bad faith going on then you say we should assume everyone will accept your decision in a good faith way. Anyway I have made my point, best wishes and well done taking on such a difficult one, SqueakBox 00:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith and assume it's a good idea are two different things. There's no question that A Man In Black is acting in good faith ... but I really don't think it's a good idea. --BigDT 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I think if anything is clear it is that there is not a consensus for a merge. JoshuaZ 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A merge does appear to take into consideration the concerns that the subject lacks notability for his own article/privacy concerns while still including information that may be relevant to other pages: sourced information that is in this article. People really are looking for an argument before the closing admin has even given his explanation, though, so perhaps people should calm down and at least wait for that before shooting off a thousand inevitable DRVs. Cowman109Talk 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Instead of immediately arguing with the solution, let's let A Man In Black give the specifics of his complex merge. Sean William @ 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, AMIB. If you would like to propose a compromise, propose it, in the discussion, don't impose it, by closing with that as the solution if it's not even been discussed. See what people think of it first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it is "a !voter".  There's no consensus for a merge ... there may be one for a keep or delete ... there may not be ... I don't know.  But there are problems with your idea that need to be worked out - that's why it needs to be proposed first, not simply imposed.  For example, one big sticking point with me is that keeping the history around is a really .bad. idea.  I think we would be much better served if we copied the references to Talk:Namebase and Namebase was created from scratch.  Nothing whatsoever good can come from keeping the old history around. But all of this is beside the point - if you want to propose an idea, propose it before the closing. --BigDT 00:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On what are you basing your claim that there is no consensus for a merge? I feel, as the closer, that a merge serves the stated interests, reasoning, and objectives of the majority of those who commented here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will eventually be overturned by WP:DRV, but I'm reading past the bolded bits into rest of what people are saying and I think this serves the interests of as many people as possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people supported a merge, then someone would have suggested that, and everyone else would have said "OH! That's a great idea, let's do that!" There actually were a couple merge suggestions, and to even say they got a lukewarm support would be charitable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This is seriously problematic. I believe you're acting in good faith here, but this is not the solution. I also believe that some of your rationale is faulty (see my keep argument for a good number of highly reputable sources specifically featuring Daniel Brandt as long as twenty years ago.) Taking one bit out of the NYT while ignoring the rest does not make a good rationale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agree with Seraph here. Also, if you think that this is going to make Brandt at all happy you are very much mistaken. He's made it quite clear that almost anything beyond a mention of him is more than he will tolerate here. JoshuaZ 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was mentioning in passing that it seemed pretty redundant with Google Watch. I will clarify. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And you wonder why we ask you to act civilly. Sean William @ 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't.  I wonder why you're still in any position of power, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added a DRV request . JoshuaZ 01:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and a big reason why people vote delete and keep, is that they, quite frankly, rarely vote anything else. People often seem to forget that other options exist above and beyond keep and delete. Even those wanting an article don't seem to realise that redirects deal with those searching for someone by name, and that merge is still keeping the material. Carcharoth 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my reasoning for the close, only stated better than I managed to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I read User:A Man In Black/Brandt. You stated it very well there. Carcharoth 02:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Redirects don't work when someone is notable for multiple things. That's what we have articles for. JoshuaZ 03:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they do, you just have lots of redirects instead: Daniel Brandt (Namebase); Daniel Brandt (Wikipedia), Daniel Brandt (Google Watch), and so on. Carcharoth 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, and Daniel Brandt then links to what? A DAB page with "Daniel Brandt" may refer to any of the following people who are really the same person but we can't put them all in one article because that would create too much drama? Right. JoshuaZ 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I'm now thinking that moving the page history to a subpage somewhere (to satisfy GFDL) and deleting the Brandt redirect is the way to go. That way, you are left only with the search results when you search for Brandt, which should include the articles the information ended up in. That is the situation for other people-without-articles who are footnotes in existing articles. You have to search for them. Carcharoth 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should rename the article to Brandt websites or some such name that would take the article out of the BLP space, distance it from Danile Brandt. Such a name wouldnt google first for the search term Danile Brandt and would avoid the complex merge. Well just my 2p's worth, SqueakBox 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has that been suggested before? Might work. Carcharoth 02:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, just thought of it myself having a snooze earlier, SqueakBox 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm ... why is this being closed early? 

message: The courtesy blanking on this AFD was ... unusual, to say the least, and I have undone it.  If anyone feels strongly like it should be re-blanked, please discuss here first.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it unusual?  --Iamunknown 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD un-courtesy-blanked

message: The AFD closure says the article history is to be kept for GFDL reasons, but tis gone... OK or not? --kingboyk (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deleted 

message: For those that might still have this watchlisted and be interested in either clarifying their views or giving new ones, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DRV notice