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

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.[1] 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)

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)

Referencing is not the issue. WAS 4.250 03:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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 [2] .--Mantanmoreland 16:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

The "new rule" being cited here is that the BLP subject does not want to have a BLP on wikipedia despite multiple reliable sources having biographical articles on him. Does this apply to any BLP subject? If it does, I'll be sure and alert any BLP subjects I can that have publicly available email addresses and make sure that Wikipedia'a Arbcom wishes are done. Piperdown 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Has there been any discussion about someone to close this? It would be nice if there are three or four regular AFD closers who have offered no input that could do it as a group project. (By the way, in case anyone cares, purely from a head-counting standpoint, for amusement purposes only, something that should have no impact on the final outcome, not taking into account SPAs or anything like that, disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, there are 54 delete !votes and 39 keep !votes as of right now.)--BigDT 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Nobody will be satisfied by the result. FrozenPurpleCube 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only logical person to close the discussion is God-King Jimbo Wales Himself. I hereby nominate him to do it. It makes sense :-) -- Seth Finkelstein 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is not a neutral party. See Brandt's talk page, where Brandt reports as follows:

I appealed to Mr. Jimmy Wales on April 11, 2007. A copy of thisappeal is at www.wikipedia-watch.org/jwappeal.html. Mr. Walesdeclined to address the main point of my appeal, which was to getthe article deleted. He stated on April 11 in an email to me,that "regarding the issue of the existence of an article aboutyou, I see little room for discussion. You are a prominent personwhose work has been noticed in major media outlets, and as such,there seems to be no good reason for us not to have an articleabout you."In that same April 11 email, Mr. Wales said that I was free toappeal to the Board of Trustees.On April 21, Mr. Wales said, "I am trying very hard to accomodate[sic] you. If the ONLY thing you are interested in here is havingthe biography deleted completely, then I will sadly have to saythat, no, I will not do that."

216.60.70.75 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is neither a god nor a king. In any event, he is not going to close the discussion so this is moot. If he wanted to make a Jimbo ex machina pronouncement on it, he has had two years to do so. --BigDT 03:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And it's not at all clear that the community would sanction or abide his involving himself in any capacity other than as a good ol' closing admin.

On the broader question, it is quite plain that there will be no consensus to delete here, and we'll then be left with the suggestion by some that, inasmuch as consensus at an insular AfD is generally not understood as overriding policy that commands the support of the community, BLP militates against keeping here, interpretations thereof to the contrary notwithstanding. So the closing admin will either act consistent with the no consensus to delete nature of the debate or will "weigh" the arguments and perhaps find the deletes to have the better of it in the context of BLP (a course of action for which, of course, I have much disdain). In either case we'll then have a DRV, the result of which almost surely be a non-endorsement, non-rejection of closure, which will probably preserve, rightly or wrongly, whatever disposition should be pronounced here. The issue, I suppose, is whether, in the absence of a consensus for deletion and where participating editors are split as to whether BLP counsels deletion categorically, we ought to err, as we usually do, on the side of keeping or, as some would suggest BLP to propose, on the side of deleting. For my part, I think it is quite clear that where a non-trivial number of contributors suggest that BLP does not apply dispositively, it should not be understood as controlling, such that our presumption should be to keep. That understanding is undoubtedly disputed, though, and I cannot imagine that this should proceed other than as any of our several hotly disputed BLP-driven AfD/DRVs of late. Joe 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought about proposing a similar team effort, but I'm no grand fan of the idea from a policy standpoint because I think it to encourage those admins who are collaborating to close a discussion to substitute their judgment (in the "weighting" of arguments) for that of those participating in the AfD (this is a concern similar to that raised about bureaucrat chats intended to dispose of RfAs, except that it is generally accepted that !votes that do not even seek to apply community-supported policy [or apply policy in a fashion generally recognized as entirely unreasonable] ought to be disregarded here, whilst there is no overarching policy reflecting the general wishes and standards of the community vis-à-vis adminship). If such a solution were to command wide support from those participating here, though, I suppose it would be quite fine; anything to reduce discord is probably a good thing (although anything other than a no consensus closure is likely to irk those of us who favor keeping, and anything other than a delete closure is likely to irk those who want BLP to control here). If we are to select a single closer, I would propose Xoloz, who, though not active at AfD, may quite frequently doing work at DRV, where he capably interprets discussions consistent with the consensus of those participating therein, to almost universal acclaim. Joe 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz probably should stay out of it - we need him to close the inevitable DRV. ;) --BigDT 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to save him for something, it ought to be for the DRV of the DRV. If we are to pursue a team closure, either with or without an admin chat, though, I'm thinking that the community would almost surely abide any interpretation of the discussion in which (to use very broad terms here) a "BLP-deletionist" and "BLP-inclusionist"/process-oriented admin might concur, and I've proposed to Xoloz that such a team be composed of Newyorkbrad and him. Is such a closure something to which others here would be amenable (although I continue to believe any closure other than no consensus; hence, keep to be unreasonable and inconsistent with this AfD and policy, I can't imagine that I would be dissatisfied were Brad and Xoloz to collaborate on a reasoned closure, and I think most others would feel similarly)? Joe 05:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like Joe is pushing for an admin-channel IRC cabal, tailored to rubber-stamp the notion that a majority in favor of "delete" on a BLP, plus the sustained wishes of the subject over a period of 20 months, plus a relevant new modification to BLP policy, nevertheless all amount to a "no consensus" that must result in a "keep." For the record, I feel that this is inappropriate behavior by Joe. -- Daniel Brandt 68.91.255.81 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some admins who, in closing this AfD, would in good faith close it as "delete", and others who, also in good faith, would close it as "keep" (some of whom would phrase it as "no consensus, defaulting to 'keep'"). The serious problem being addressed here is that resolution of the matter shouldn't depend on the happenstance of which admin decides to pick it up. That concern is the reason for suggesting that some kind of process be "tailored" to this situation -- not to achieve a particular result, but to recognize that this AfD isn't exactly a typical one.

As to the specific suggestion, it's quite clear to me that there's no consensus for deletion. I'll be upset if it's deleted regardless of whether it's by a lone admin, or by a preselected and allegedly representative committee, or even by the Board. I would be marginally less upset if it were a committee rather than a (self-selected) lone admin. Of course, regardless of how the committee members were chosen, many people would find fault with the process -- and I might be among them! I can't imagine any way that this could be closed as "delete" without triggering at least one DRV, and quite possibly a summer-long DRV-fest. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're never going to have an overwhelming majority to do anything on something like this where there are socks flying all around. One thing I do notice is that admins are almost unanimous that the article should be deleted. The other thing I notice is that the arguments are really not even hitting each other. For the keep side, the issue is that he is notable period. For the delete side, the issue is privacy. Neither side disputes the contention of the other. One thing worth keeping in mind is that up until WP:BLP, every policy was written with the idea that the subject wanted to be included. In other words, the policies and guidelines were talking about the minimum requirement for some garage band to have a Wikipedia article. This one is completely different and should be evaluated differently. --BigDT 11:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the contention of privacy. There's *nothing* in the article right now that invades his privacy in any substantial way that I can tell. Everything in the article should be something available in public sources, so consider it a non-issue. (And I see no evidence that the admins are unanimous in saying the article should be deleted, maybe it's just the admins you know). FrozenPurpleCube 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say unanimous - I said nearly unanimous. How many admins do you see who are !voting keep? I think you can count them on one hand. As for privacy? Wikipedia gets the first or second g-hit on just about any subject, Brandt included. Its content is replicated to countlessly many sites like about.com and answers.com and many of these sites are themselves high up the list of g-hits. An article at Wikipedia brings someone a lot more attention than say, an interview on some random website or even a CNN article. And whereas attention from CNN will go away, attention from Wikipedia is there forever. Our own policies and guidelines had always assumed that the subject WANTED to be included. They are something that we can show to the random company that thinks a Wikipedia article should be a part of their advertising campaign. But in this case, the subject does not want to be included and the "delete" side of the discussion is that there is no compelling reason to include him. --BigDT 14:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The voices of administrators are not supposed to carry any more weight... but that is a rule much observed in the lack observance or something. Oh, well, then. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Counting.

1. User:Bogdangiusca;
2. User:DESiegel;
3. User:wwwwolf;
4. User:J Milburn;
5. User:DGG;
6. User:Seraphimblade;
7. User:Black Falcon;
8. User:Freakofnurture;
9. User:WilyD;
10. User:Prolog; and, well,
11. yours truly.

I may well have missed a few. Yet still, sir, I propose you've got mighty odd hands if you can count those merely on one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't talk about my 12-fingered hand. ;) In all seriousness, I stand corrected. --BigDT 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unanimous, nearly unanimous, no difference, if it bothers you, consider it inserted in there. It's a bad idea to worry about what the "admins" say anyway. That just leads to elitism. And um, the compelling reason is "Wikipedia shouldn't be censored" . May not matter to you, but that's compelling to me. And me, I never assumed anything about what a person wants. Actually, I fear even considering what a person or organizations wants to be said about them opens up a much deeper can of worms. I stick at accurate and unbiased as general desires for any Wikipedia article. If somebody wants something beyond that, they can go to a different site. FrozenPurpleCube 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BigDT wrote: "For the keep side, the issue is that he is notable period. For the delete side, the issue is privacy. Neither side disputes the contention of the other." I don't read it that way. The delete side disputes notability. They do so very unpersuasively -- ignoring Brandt's non-Wikipedia-related notability, and then arguing that to keep the article is being Wikipedia-centric because his Wikipedia-related notability is low. JamesMLane t c 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Joe has done anything wrong in that he hasn't done anything. It would be a good idea to have in advance a group of admins selected to close the discussion simply in order for that closure to have validity. Xoloz and Brad are certainly respected. I'm curious if either is interested in the job. There are a few other names of regular AFD closers that I think would be good candidates ... the purpose here is so that the decision will be respected and not just considered to be another !vote. --BigDT 11:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this closed by two or three mature, intelligent admins who have never been involved in this debate, who don't get involved in deletion issues, and who aren't labeled as deletionists or inclusionists. The BLP policy says that the weight accorded to a subject's wishes should be decided by the deleting admin, so it's going to be a difficult decision, and that means we need people who come to it with fresh eyes. Two names that spring to mind of very smart admins who've not been involved in this: Zero0000, Rockpocket. Perhaps others could suggest other names. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I doubt it matters who closes this. The close will be contested - better just stick it on DRV, since that's where it's headed.--Doc^g 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's kept. J Milburn 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then we can ask some completely uninvolved admins to close that too. We need to take the ideology right out of this issue, which I think means looking for intelligent admins who are neutral by any standard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mature sounds good too. I dont think it should be a teenager because of the message that would send out, SqueakBox 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about an arb? Or Radiant!?--Doc^g 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder? SqueakBox 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it's a great idea to say "Only X may close this" (how would that be enforceable anyway?). The last time around, IronGargoyle made a very good, intelligent, thoughtful close with a very well spoken statement. Is his name the first that would have come to mind? I don't know that it would have been. I would certainly hope that any admin would be clueful enough to know that if you've expressed a viewpoint on this one way or the other, it would be a Very Bad Idea^TM to close this one, and that if you knew how you were going to close it before reading the discussion, it would be a tremendously bad idea for you to actually do it. I imagine (and hope) that some uninvolved admins without a strong opinion either way are monitoring the discussion and carefully considering the arguments presented by both sides. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The one admin I know who has expressed indifference as to the fate of this article and would, IMO, be highly appropriate would be Jimbo Wales, SqueakBox 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Only Nixon could go to China. Draft Jimbo! :-) -- Seth Finkelstein 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I say we use Wikipedia:Requests for being the person who closes the 14th Daniel Brandt articles for deletion debate. Gracenotes^T § 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a better solution. Let's delete all articles on Wikipedia except this one! FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an even better one. Don't allow any biographies on living people unless they agree first, not object after the fact. Also consult the heirs of dead biograph-ees and make sure they're ok with leaving their forebearers being accused of anti-semitism based on 2 co-habitating "scholars" from the 1950's with an axe to polish to a nub, or being possibly gay despite no forensic buggery evidence existing, yadda yadda....Piperdown 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Could you please be a love and get Marlon Brando to agree to our article on him? Thanks. Now Charles Manson. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is the properly authorized heir to approve the Adolf Hitler article? (Godwin's Law alert!!!!) *Dan T.* 12:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I was kidding 2) I said "heirs" of dead people, not dead people 3) Charlie seems to love negative publicity. Try a conjugal visit and get him to sign the wikirelease, Anon. 4) Being dead does not give license for wikipedians with no life to spend 21 hours a day trying to paint numerous historical figures with the anti-semitism brush. Pretty much everyone in the Western world who wasn't jewish was to some degree culturally prejudiced against other religions and races before WWII. Also try finding a white American southerner before 1960 who didn't use the N word, often without malice but by cultural habit - I'm sure wikipedians next torch party will be on that front after they get through painting Santa Claus, the Brothers Grimm, and Mozart as anti-semites. Calls to the Grimm heirs in response were not immediately returned. What else are they hiding? Piperdown 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm sure the closing admin will take into account that the IP comments could be SPAs and disregard when neccessary, there's not need for a protect. Darrenhusted 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. But the IP comments are still disruptive. And some will waste their time arguing with Brandt's socks. --Kaypoh 12:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I looked to check if the SPA tags were being added in a forthright manner by Juzon Vürßt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after JoshuaZ restored some of them. Juzon's account appears to have been created April 23, and his 4th edit was to tag someone as a suspected sock puppet -this strikes me as suspicious. Then I checked one of his spa tags and the first one I came to was one added to Shawn K. Quinn's comment (diff here). So I looked at Shawn's contribs and found that he has been editing on wiki since at least Aug. 5, 2005 (50 edits on first page -aug.5 was the oldest). I know that if I was deciding who was the SPA between the two, it wouldn't be the guy who has been here since 2005. I know this isn't a vote but we need to keep an eye on the addition of these tags, and who's adding and removing them. After I removed the tag from Shawn's sig (diff here), Angelina Wartenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed an SPA tag associated with her own comment(diff). I would like other particpants here to check that, well maybe participants with more than 50 edits to check it. R. Baley 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Juzon is from Wikipedia Review. Just ignore him. We need to deal with this "coming of age" without outside influences. Sean William @ 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As there is a tag at the top of the main page which states:

We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

It is not a vote.

Why would you choose to ignore any arguments? Why does the source of the arguments matter? Why do you consider statements made by the 99% of internet users who are not long-time Wikipedia editors to have no value? Why does editing a few article on Wikipedia make someone's arguments more meritorious? (Does a user's argument get bonus points based on how long they've been editing?) Uncle uncle uncle 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The unintentional hilarity of this statement is killing me. This entire charade is based on "outside influences." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(ec):yup, my mistake, confusing Durova's initial statement with the Wub's additional statement, SqueakBox 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You think a new argument will emerge? As or 'it will be contested' - it will be anyway.--Doc^g 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Its being contested is why we should stick to the letter of the law in this case, SqueakBox 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean that if we wait a day, it won't be contested?--Doc^g 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Because it's been four days, and the last day has been full of uselessness. It's going to be contested no matter what, so the best hope is to forge the best compromise I can, one which will weather the inevitable continued storm of fighting. If the compromise is good, then the trivia of hour counts won't matter. If the compromise is bad, it doesn't matter when I do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Cowman109^Talk 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

If someone wants to read over my shoulder, User:A Man In Black/Brandt has my notes and drafted close. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not the job of the closing admin to forge a compromise. It is not the job of the closing admin to unilaterally impose their own will or ideas on the process. It is the job of the closing admin to determine (1) any applicable overriding policies (consensus cannot override copyright law, for example) and (2) determine what, if any, consensus exists. I have no question that you are acting in good faith, but it's a really bad idea. The time to propose a merge is early in the process, not in the administrative closing. If you think there is a consensus to keep, then keep it. If you think there is a consensus to delete, then delete it. If you think there is no consensus, then do one of the above or relist it. But don't make something completely different up. --BigDT 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm not proposing my own solution. I'm taking an existing solution proposed by a !voter, and using it to serve the interests, reasoning, and stated objectives of as many !voters as possible. This is the business of conducting a close in a hard fight that isn't going anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm worried about Public Information Research. You appear to have unilaterally said "delete that!" that without any discussion at all. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

For those that might be unaware, very similar merges have been done twice: see here and here. The discussion surrounding these attempts might be helpful. - Ehheh 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. I can't even make any sort of other coherent argument for this - it's simply dumb. Way to completely ignore everyone and find a way to piss those people off further in the process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And you wonder why we ask you to act civilly. Sean William @ 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. I wonder why you're still in any position of power, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a DRV request [3]. JoshuaZ 01:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was one of those suggesting a series of merges, and if some people actually understood how merges work, then they might see how that is an elegant solution. The basic idea is that Brandt needs to be mentioned in some contexts in Wikipedia articles, the material and sources exist in this article, so splitting the content up among different pages preserves the information, while reducing the focus on Brandt that an article titled with his name generates. ie. Brandt goes from having his own article to being a footnote in several articles. Essentially, having his own article was a distortion of due weight. Splitting the material up focuses the attention back on the various companies and activities, not on the private aspects of the person. Carcharoth 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nah, I read User:A Man In Black/Brandt. You stated it very well there. Carcharoth 02:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Has that been suggested before? Might work. Carcharoth 02:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, just thought of it myself having a snooze earlier, SqueakBox 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, an early close, a difficult to implement, and potentially non-solution? I'm not convinced this is the way to go anyway, I'm concerned it's effectively going to diffuse the information content available on Daniel Brandt in a way that reduces the meaning. But then, I thought it was a bad solution anyway. Oh well, I'm sure there will be a discussion on the merge proposal so who knows what the result will be. FrozenPurpleCube 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the solution that eventually got implemented with Ryan Jordan. I don't see any big fuss at this time about the fact that this is a disambiguation page, with Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) being a redlink and not even a redirect to Essjay controversy. Randolph Stetson 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a horrible self-reference, in my opinion. Carcharoth 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference isn't a reason not to have an article. Please read WP:ASR. It doesn't say anything about avoiding articles about Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 13:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not express my personal opinion on the merits of the solution. I merely observed that the community seems to have settled into it for the time being with no big fuss coming from either side. And this is so in spite of the fact that Ryan Jordan (Wikipedia) is far more notable even to outsiders than Ryan Jordan (singer). Randolph Stetson 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any significant information about [Person who is subject of bio article] that can't reasonably be accommodated in [Article about subject concerning which person is notable]? For Essjay, no, there isn't; it can all go in Essjay controversy. For Brandt, yes, there is such information. The result of the effective deletion of a separate article on Brandt is that no article brings together the relevant information. A reader can, with effort, discover that the guy who started Google Watch was also on the CIA's case, but learning that simple fact shouldn't require the reader to examine each of the "See also" links. Also, of course, even that compromise solution is under further attack: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA HTTP cookies controversy. JamesMLane t c 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to have one article on Public Information Research, which is the name/organization Brandt operates under. Then all the projects can be described on one page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That solution would amount to a "rename" instead of delete. It might therefore be appropriate, although it's not clear to me that a PIR article would include all the information from the Daniel Brandt article. Even if we except material that's only about Brandt peronally, such as the draft protest, I'm not sure his CIA-cookie work was done under the name of PIR. More to the point is that the solution you describe is not what was done by the closing admin. Your solution would at least make clear that these different projects are by the same person. The result now in effect obscures that and is being subjected to further dilution through deletion of daughter articles. Accordingly, based on your comment here, you should change your comment on the DRV to an overturn. As it stands, you are supporting the effective deletion of an article despite the clear absence of a consensus for that course. JamesMLane t c 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with James. At minimum, putting this all in one article such as the PIR article would make a lot more sense. But that's not what this close declared. JoshuaZ 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

James, the BLP policy says that it's up to the closing admin how much weight should be placed on the subject's wish to have the thing deleted, so don't keep saying there is no consensus. Consensus among those commenting is only one factor that the closing admin is meant to look at.

The PIR article wouldn't include all the information from the Brandt article; there'd be no point in deleting it if it did, would there? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Two comments: first, as I have said before if AMIB had deleted the article based on the BLP concerns we wouldn't be where we are now and I wouldn't be objecting, but to claim that he can give the BLP weight whatever he wants and that that somehow leads to a merge is a bit hard to swallow. In any event, we can easily merge things to the PIR article and remove the few more Brandt-centric details. That shouldn't be too hard at all and it would be a much better solution than the current one. JoshuaZ 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'll keep saying that there was no consensus because there clearly wasn't. As for the change in BLP policy that you invoke, it appears to have been adopted without consideration for how it would interact with the ideal of consensus. As applied, here and in the Seth Finkelstein case, the new policy seems to mean: "The previous policy, stating that an absence of consensus defaults to "keep", is hereby modified, to state that in a BLP case the subject's wishes govern unless there is a clear consensus against the subject's wishes." I think that's a very unwise policy. I haven't gone through all the material relating to the recent change, so I don't know how many people thought that's what they were supporting. (If I had known about the proposal to change the policy while it was under discussion, I would've strongly opposed the change, so I admit I'm biased against giving any weight to the article subject's preferences.) As for how much of the information would go into the PIR article, I expressly pointed out that, for example, the draft information wouldn't make the cut. This is the sort of detail that could have been discussed if the merger solution had been offered for consideration through the normal process. Unless the DRV succeeds, though, there's no point in our discussing it here, because it's all moot. Daniel Brandt doesn't redirect to a single article that has information about his projects and activities. If those of you who support the closure prevail, then the solution you suggest here will not be adopted in any form. JamesMLane t c 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP says simply that the closing admin must look at arguments and consensus, not simply count votes, and that the subject's wishes, if he is semi-notable, are taken into account as part of that consensus, with the weight given to the subject to be decided by the closing admin. Or are you saying that our wishes in this matter should count as heavily as those of the only person who is being directly affected? As for how to proceed, once we establish that we're having articles on his projects/organization, rather than on him, it's a matter of editorial judgment whether we need one or more, and what the contents should be, so I don't quite follow your last point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know whether you think the new policy means what I've suggested, that a living subject's wishes prevail unless there's a clear consensus to the contrary. My point about mootness is that Daniel Brandt doesn't currently redirect to an article where "all the projects [are] described on one page", as you suggested above. It redirects just to NameBase. The protection created as part of the closing means that those of us who aren't admins can't change that. As a practical matter, any admin who changed the Brandt redirect, so that it redirected to a page describing all his projects, would certainly be flamed hairless. To be blunt about it, it's inconsistent for you to suggest this solution here while endorsing an AfD closing that effectively precludes that solution. If the DRV succeeds in overturning the improper closing, I would regard your solution as a possible compromise (inferior to keeping the article but maybe the best that's attainable given the widespread deletionist sentiment). If the closing is endorsed, though, then there's no point in my even considering your suggestion. I'll simply continue to believe that my side of the dispute was treated unfairly. JamesMLane t c 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be suggesting that we have one article describing all PIR's projects, rather than the four or whatever that we currently have, even if the closure is endorsed. What the closing admin suggested was that we move relevant content from the bio into article(s) about his projects, so whether we have one or four, it's still consistent with the closure.

What I think the policy means is just what it says: that in cases of semi-notability, the closing admin decides how much weight to place on the wishes of the subject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how one defines semi-notability can be an issue. In any event, I have no major issue with sticking all the projects together. JoshuaZ 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Determining notability is always going to be an issue, because it isn't algorithmic. That's why we have to hope that smart admins do controversial closures, then we have to trust their judgment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't algorithmic, but there's still a difference between (1) trusting an admin's judgment about whether the subject is notable, and (2) trusting an admin's judgment about whether there's a consensus that the subject is nonnotable. In the case of the Brandt Afd, reasonable people could differ on the first point, but not on the second. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why do you think it unusual? --Iamunknown 04:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Nvm, I'm not interested. --07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, is that (un-courtesy)-blanked or un-(courtesy-blanked) ? Randolph Stetson 16:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)