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 per the snowball clause. Process with purpose is one thing, but process for process's sake is just silly. Everything's died down, just close the debate and be done with it. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

Abstaining from voting. Brandt has called for a third AfD on his article. I say give it to him, and run it for the full seven days. Gives him one less thing to complain about. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep; very notable behind the scenes mover and shaker. This man Daniel Brandt is far too notable not to have an article here, this afd should be speedied IMO, SqueakBox 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with incidents he has been a part of (i.e. Siegenthaler controversy and wikipediawatch). Nothing else is notable like his birthday and parents and DOB and POB and anti-war stance and current residence. --Tbeatty 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for his activism, privacy campaigns and newsmedia interviews. To quote User:Lord Bob: "Batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion". -M^ask 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just an observation: This comment has survived multiple edits by administrators that ostensibly were to "remove personal attacks." How is it that the people who saw Brandt's comments as "personal attacks" didn't see this one? Is "Batshit Insanity" now an appropriate way to refer to people? It seems to be a classic "hive mind" demonstration. --Tbeatty 16:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the last two AfDs which resulted in solid keeps. He's an attention whore who has been in the New York Times a half dozen times for a half dozen different things. Gamaliel 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attention Whore" isn't a personal attack? You edited out Brandt's personal attacks. --Tbeatty 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, I'll change it to "attention prostitute". Gamaliel 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If anything, he's gotten more notable since the last attempt at an AfD. *Dan T.* 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. The Psycho 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has only 87 edits, mostly related to posts at Wikipedia Review.

Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does this guy realize that the more he does this kind of thing, the more notable he gets? It's like a Catch-22 JackO'Lantern 23:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude, it may be that you feel Wikipedia is very important and the doings of its community are exciting, but the world largely ignores the latter and doesn't pay much mind to how the former gets made. Daniel Brandt is "notable" to people active in the project space but not to the outside world. Why not give the guy what he wants? Other articles have been censored on less ground. We can't even have one about Brian Peppers and Brandt is less noted than Peppers.Grace Note 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. No one even knows what he looks like. There's no picture of him on the web. 4.230.153.240 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was not having a picture on the web a notability criterion. Have you seen WP:BIO? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is frankly embarassing. He has, by his own actions, made himself notable. By the way, maybe we could ask him for a picture? ;-) SoLando (Talk) 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still seems notable enough for inclusion to me, and I don't see any other valid reasons for deletion. Information published publically is public. TrueMirror 23:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems well-sourced and notable. Fascinating. Kuru ^talk 00:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it. He's a complete nobody who has trolled Wikipedia. That makes him notable for Jimbo but still an unknown for the rest of the world. There is nothing to say about him that could not be covered in the GoogleWatch article. Grace Note 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's notable. He's gone out of his way to be a public spokesman on an issue, and to be quoted widely in the media. He does not have the right to then choose who covers him. Fan1967 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Fan1967. Johntex\^talk 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the future, Werdna648, please don't make AFD nominations solely because the subject of the article told you to. The sentence "Gives him one less thing to complain about" worries me that some of my fellow users are actually afraid of Daniel Brandt, if so, this is a dark day in wiki-history. Whether you like it or not, and whether Brandt likes it or not, he is notable [1]. We have biographies for hundreds of people less notable than Brandt, many of which nobody has even considered deleting. — Apr. 6, '06 [00:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It's far easier just to let him have his overwhelmingly kept AfD - and it seems a pretty petty request anyway. Might as well let him have it. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough then, I assume it will treated similarly to the Gay Nigger Association of America article after this. — Apr. 6, '06 [04:30] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Keep. Notable, encyclopedic.--Eloquence* 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The person that this article is about does not want an article about him on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not he is notable, we shouldn't have an article on him because he doesn't want it. Before you vote keep, think about whether or not this was about you. Surely you wouldn't want an article about yourself on Wikipedia that mentions criticisms about you. No one would. Therefore this article should be deleted. Bullseye 01:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC) User's first contribution. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting logic, according to which any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, which would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable.--Eloquence* 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, they can. Apparantly, Daniel Brandt is the first person to do so. Bullseye 01:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quit being fools. This guy simply doesn't want an article about him, so there shouldn't be one. Why are so many people voting keep? If this article were about you and it included criticisms about you, you'd understand. Houston R. 01:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC) User removed notices such as this, accusing them of being "unnecessary". This was their first contribution, and they are currently blocked indefinitely for sneakily changing votes on this page Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 01:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, notable. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability through Google-related activism leads, and this is what an encyclopedia is for - giving background on how a referenced person/thing/whatsit might significant - whether it really is significant is then for the reader to judge Shenme 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I believe a specific person has the right to delete an article on themself. if he doesnt want to be noted, we should comply.Vulcanstar6 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a bad precedent to give any person veto power over an article here. I don't think even Jimbo has given himself such a power. *Dan T.* 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Jimbo has the power. It's a Front Office lock and no admin will undo it. It's indefintite and is used to lock bio's in a favorable uneditbable state while Jimbo works out the issues.--Tbeatty 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lock, not delete. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Distinction without a difference. Edit out controversial info, permanently lock it. I agree with that policy and it is needed to protect Wikimedia. --Tbeatty 04:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But they don't permanently lock anything; those office-action locks are temporary, and the "controversial info" might also only be temporarily deleted; it can usually return if it's meticulously sourced. Partisans against the article's subject usually still don't like it, since much of their critical info has to stay out because it doesn't have a reliable source (blogs and Usenet generally don't count), but it doesn't end up deleted altogether, locked permanently, or a total whitewash in favor of the article's subject either. *Dan T.* 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The question was whether he has the power and the answer is yes. Front Office locks are the power. How they choose to use it to protect Wikimedia Foundation is up to them. It is a smart thing to do because societies laws are different than the rules on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 05:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The laws are indeed different but as wikipedia clearly isn't breaking the laws of the United States it would be really silly to pretend otherwise. I don't believe Jimbo has the power to permanently lock this article without bringing wikipedia into such a state of uncredibility that the project would rapidly collapse as that isn't how wikipedia works and to imagine Jimbo is some super-dictator with the power to go against consensu is misplaced, SqueakBox 05:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It wouldn't be against consensus. Certainly, and this goes to the group dynamics of Wikipedia, if Jimbo put a vote up for delete, he would get enough support. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The warning at the top clearly states that this really isn't a vote. Daniel Brandt's user page was deleted outright because he cited the new Florida law and editors assessed that as a violation of internal wikipedia policy. Rather than just remove the threat and leave his requests, his page was completely deleted. --Tbeatty 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not true... I actually recall at least one case of Jimbo starting an AfD on some article and having it end up in the direction of "Keep" anyway. Wikipedians may be many things, but they're not "droids" who blindly do what Jimbo says. *Dan T.* 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the same as the President saying "I don't like the way newspapers are writing about me, I should put a stop to that." ~MDD4696 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's like the president at all. It's more like Siegenthaler saying his bio is a bunch of crap, please remove it.--Tbeatty 03:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, because Seigenthaler's bio was a bunch of crap, whereas this is correct, sourced, notable, and, IMO, one of our best-written and sourced articles. If it weren't for the controversey, a little expansion would see it recognised as a Good Article. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyway, Siegenthaler's article wasn't deleted; only the false info was deleted from it. The article as a whole is longer and more informative than it was before the controversy. *Dan T.* 04:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable subject, well-sourced article, encyclopedic topic. Meets all inclusion criteria. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable Gflores^Talk 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This guy is definately notable, just read the article. I'd say this was a bad faith nomination (not a reflection on Werdna648 though). ~MDD4696 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think that deleting this article is insane. I nominated to appease Brandt, hoping Brandt would appreciate me filing another AfD for him as per his request, and moving towards negotiation. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  (personal attack removed) If someone does not want their biography on Wikipedia then it shouldn't be put on Wikipedia. (personal attack removed) DanieI Brandt 03:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow me to make my opinion more clear. Deleting this article because its subject tells us to is insane. As stated above, it's like us editing or deleting articles on the president because he doesn't like what we say about him. Whether you like it or not, you are notable, and there is public domain information about you. Therefore, we will write an article about you, and there is no way that it will be deleted. Try negotiating away at your problems with the article, rather than fruitlessly trying to have it deleted. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's totally different. The president has never actually come to Wikipedia and tried to get that stuff removed. You are comparing apples and oranges here. DanieI Brandt 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And if he did, we wouldn't let him have it removed anyway. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you would want to mess with the president. The president could well ban Wikipedia if the article about him weren't removed if he wanted it to be removed. The president has the power to ban Wikipedia for being an attack zone. Fetchin' 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If it only weren't for that pesky First Amendment... Shucks. Grandmasterka 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, fascinating and very widely covered SOB. Don't want a biography on Wikipedia? Too bad. He practically dug his own grave. Grandmasterka 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I don't even see the argument here? There's a hugelist of articles in the external links here. It's notable directly pertaining to the project. What's the argument here? This is nonsense ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an argument of notability. It's an argument that this article shouldn't be here because the person it's discussing does not want it here. (personal attack removed) DanieI Brandt 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Drop the personal attacks, up the civility. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Including an article in Wikipedia on someone when they don't want one is a personal attack. DanieI Brandt 03:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Note: The foregoing was posted by user "DanieI Brandt", with a capital I (eye) instead of the lowercase "l" (ell). This is a username with no prior edit history, and is hence either a sockpuppet of a blocked user or an impersonator. *Dan T.* 11:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your reasoning here. Please provide further information as to how this article's inclusion constitutes a personal attack. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a personal attack because the person doesn't want an article about him on Wikipedia. You all better delete this article, because if you don't, the last topic in Wikipedia may be dawning near. Fetchin' 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • many Wikipedia editors considered to be violations of Wikipedia policy or otherwise inappropriate, especially compiling personal information about Wikipedia editors on his website. That's an easy one. Why is it a violation for Brandt to compile personal information on his website when Wikipedia compiles personal information about him on Wikipedia? --Tbeatty 03:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's considered harassment. The information written on Wikipedia about Mr. Brandt is already widely known, and is not threatening. ~MDD4696 03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To whom is it not threatening? Mr. Brandt obviously feels very threatened by it. Threatened enough that he seeks to out those who makes edits that he feels threatened by. --Tbeatty 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the policy by the way. There is no exception listed for articles that I could find.:

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor or not.

• • • • • None of that information is present in the article as of now. I would say that his website is threatening because his intent is not clear. Our intent is clear, which is to provide neutral biographical information. ~MDD4696 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • His real name is there. His place of business, date of birth, place of birth, city of residence is all there. It's all sourced very neatly and concisely. And while Wikipedia might not have any evil intention's, it could be an enabler. It's interesting that posting an editors real name is a serious violation (whether or not it's public domain), but posting a whole littany of information about a person that is a subject is allowed, encouraged and defended. --Tbeatty 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • ... so we should remove all this information, which is available dozens of other places, based on the possibility there might be an evil stalker out there who's heard of Wikipedia but never heard of Google? Fan1967 01:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. We should delete it simply because he asked us to. --Tbeatty 03:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • His requests are irrelevant. What's next? If Dick Cheney says he's embarassed by that hunting accident and he'd like it gone, do we remove it, too? Fan1967 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable unfortunatly. Eivind^t@c 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 03:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep; there is no reason for deletion. Stop indulging this guy. We have Time Cube, and nobody has ever seriously wanted that article deleted. We have GNAA, and even though its members, in my experience, are some of the least human people in existence, they are too notable to ignore, and too notable to leave out of a conpendium of knowledge such as this encyclopedia. Similarly, Mr. Brandt should take his 15 minutes of fame with grace and accept that we will write about him with or without his permission. He lives in a fascist country where there are certain rights denied to the individual, and among those are an absolute right to privacy. If he is serious about having this article removed, perhaps his time would be better spent researching privacy advocacy and legal remedies, instead of writing lackluster web pages complaining about how Google can turn up websites authored five years ago and how the CIA peeks into citizen's private lives (Hint: It's the government. They're always going to be spying on us, whether we like it or not; if you really don't like it, put somebody into office who will do something about it!). In short, this "request" for deletion is nothing but bullshit appeasement designed to make it look like the community really cares about whether or not one man is secure in his privacy. In the pursuit of brilliant prose and accurate information, we cannot ignore WP:POINT. - CorbinSimpson 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable attention whore, as someone said. If he's mad because he can't control the spotlight himself, he can get bent. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Topics don't get to say whether or not they can be articles. Fishhead64 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletionist Keep, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We shall not be intimidated by the tactics of the subject in question, if we want, we can escalate this to our lawsuit, our principles will never falter. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How easy do you guys forget that Daniel Brandt saved all of Wikipedia's necks by identifying Brian Chase as the hoaxer? If it had not been for Brandt, Wikipedia would have been in worse conditions and its credibility would have been destroyed forever, not that it isn't already seriously damaged, due to the Seigenthaler controversy. Wikipedia has a debt to owe to Brandt, whether they like it or not, and thus Wikipedia must fulfil the terms of Quid Pro Quo. Brandt saves Wikipedia from further embarassment in the Seigenthaler scandal, and Wikipedia therefore deletes his article Jonathan 777 10:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did invading the privacy of a prankster whose false edit had already been reverted and deleted from the history save anybody's necks? And since when is Wikipedia edited on the basis of "Quid Pro Quo" or personal debts? How is the site's credibility changed, one way or the other, by finding out who was responsible for the prank? Anyway, Wikipedia's popularity (e.g., as measured by Alexa) went up through the roof when the scandal, and its resulting publicity, hit, so it hardly seems to have been harmful to it (not that I favor intentionally starting hoaxes like that to promote this site, no sirree!) *Dan T.* 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true, Chase being uncovered didn't help wikipedia at all, the problem was identifying his vandalism not identifying him, arguably his identification didn't do wikipedia a favour though Dan is 100% right that wikipedia's popularity went through the roof due to that incident, eg becoming mainstream in the UK press for the first time ever, SqueakBox 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Both of those posts are amazing. Brandt is not the bad guy for identifying the libelous editor. Libel is the enemy of wikipedia. Anonymity should not survive libel. If Chase hadn't been identified and apologized, Siegenthaler would have sued Wikimedia Foundation (and won in my opinion). Rules would be a lot less open (if there was a Wikimedia foundation after it). --Tbeatty 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any evidence for this bizarre assertion that Brandt prevented a fatal lawsuit? Gamaliel 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bizarre assertion? just his op-ed piece--Tbeatty 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see nothing in his op ed to back up your interpretation, and in fact most of it is about how he has "little legal recourse". Gamaliel 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are certainly entitled to your interpretataion as well. Certainly he was frustrated with the law. I think his use of an attorney with Bell South and his obvious research into the law meant he was preparing to challenge it. He may still be lobbying for changes to the law based on his experience. I think his contact with Chase (made possible by Brandt) smoothed a lot of ruffled feathers. If he would have went after Bell South legally, it may have meant injunctions for everyone involved. --Tbeatty 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, how about this? Delete the personal information about Brandt in his article, and then merge the rest with Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch, because in all honesty, I would believe that the consumers of Wikipedia are interested in Brandt's work with those two retrospective websites, and perhaps also NameBase and Yahoo! Watch. What Brandt is NOT notable for however is, for example, to quote: "Brandt was born in China to missionary parents." nor is he notable for having his "student deferment classification was withdrawn by the local Selective Service System in December 1968 due to his public non-cooperation with his draft board, Brandt was convicted of failure to report for a pre-induction physical exam and refusal to submit to induction. Brandt appealed and his convictions were reversed on the grounds that he was entitled to student status as an undergraduate at USC (see U.S. v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1970))." No, the consumers are interested in only 5 things about Brandt: Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch, NameBase, Yahoo Watch, and Wikipedia Review. That's it. Jonathan_777 86.129.30.99 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • And you're of course eminently qualified to judge what all consumers are interested in knowing, and to speak on all of their behalf? *Dan T.* 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets the minimum threshold of notability. -- Curps 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. — FireFox • T [11:06, 6 April 2006]

• Keep Before Brant requests his Wikipedia article be deleted, he should first request every media outlet and publication that has an article on him remove their articles. Once that's done the WP article will have no sources, would be unverifiable, and would be a fine candidate for deletion. Why has he not demanded The New York Times, Salon.com, The Register, Sydney Morning Herald, San Antonio Express-News et al to remove mention of him from their articles? Where is the "Hive-Mind" page for those publications? --Malber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mr. Brandt is notable, the article is well-written and well-sourced, and I find his argument for deletion (essentially, "because I want it deleted") to be unpersuasive. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I personally think he's a joke, but since he seems to take himself so seriously, let him have all the publicity he deserves in an encyclopedic and neutral way. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, neither a soapbox, not a website to voice your own personal opinions, and so on. Notable people can't simply say, "Oh, I'd prefer that nobody knew I existed.". Well, they *can* say it, but it helps them exactly zilch. By doing something of interest to the media, you more or less acknowledge the fact that someone will want to read about it. I find this whole discussion rather ridiculous, and the threats shallow, but whatever, one more AfD won't change things. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under what moral authority does wikipedia decide who is notable and who is not? For newspapers, I know who to hold accountable for errors, slander, etc. If I don't want my name in the phonebook anymore, I know where to go even if it was once in the phonebook. But Wikipedia is a vast anonymous, permanent archive of information about, in this case, people. Long after the links have died and the newspapers been destroyed, the claims and words (right or wrong) of wikipedia will live on. Wikipedia has no inherent right to be "gap free" in it's information. It has Great Goals, but that has to be juxtaposed against it's potential for Great Harm. --Tbeatty 21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morality doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) enter into the consideration. Wikipedia doesn't permit original research, so anything that could possibly be here under legitimate auspices has already been vetted morally by whoever published it in the first place. If you're unhappy about the publication of a particular fact, the fault lies with the original source. -Colin Kimbrell 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does come into play. If I found your name in www.whitepages.com along with your address, Wikipedia would not let me use it's space to publish it. There are lots of moral rules established by Wikipedia but establishing "notability" is one of it's weakest. --Tbeatty 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moral tiebreakers don't enter into the equation for the example you cite, because it's already disqualified on other grounds before the question even arises. If you found my name in www.whitepages.com, you wouldn't be permitted to add it to Wikipedia because www.whitepages.com is not a legitimate source, as defined by policies and guidelines. The only circumstances under which my address would appear in a legitimate source would involve some sort of noteworthy event happening at my home, and thus receiving coverage in mainstream media sources. Situations of this type have already been successfully resolved on numerous occasions, such as the removal of the alleged "real names" of several porn stars (which were not adequately sourced).
• The doctrine of notability, while not formally defined within policy, is a reasonable and logical extension of WP:V/WP:OR (in that things which are not notable are not covered by legitimate sources), as well as WP:VAIN (in that things which are not notable are only known to those who are directly involved with them, who are strongly discouraged from creating articles on those topics). Thus, the encyclopedia's resistance to articles about non-notable subjects is eminently reasonable, rooted within policies and guidelines. -Colin Kimbrell 06:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you misunderstand. I could get plenty of evidence from government documents alone that would not be allowed to be posted on wikipedia because of it's privacy policies. The title on your home is a public document. Brandt, on his own Website, lists public domain information about Wikipedia editors. Even outside of Wikipedia, wikipedians apply internal website rules and he was banned under Wikipedia policy: No personal attacks for this external behavior. And to counter this, there are other Notability requirements beyond being in the newspaper that are applied (somewhat haphazardly). Case in point: Brian Doyle and Lori Weiner. Both worked in politics. Both committed crimes (or one is accused and one has plead guilty). One crime was related to their political job and one crime was done outside the scope of their job. One is a serious felony one is misdemeanor. All of these come in to play when determining notability for an encyclopedia. Both of those people are WAY more notable than Daniel Brandt. But one will likely be deleted and one will likely be kept. There is no reason or standard to choose one over the other but the community will. There is no oversight to remove or check systematic biases in the community. Systematic biases don't harm science or dead people. They DO have the potential to harm living people by invading privacy, libelling them real time and putting them in harms way. I find it ironic that Wikipedia has a policy about revealing personal information about editors (public domain or not) but a "no holds barred" attitude on whatever "notability" standard it creates. --Tbeatty 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really comment on any of that because, to be completely honest, I have absolutely no idea who Lori Weiner is, and Google doesn't have any info on a politician by that name. I said that Doyle should be kept during his AFD discussion, and I stand by that opinion. -Colin Kimbrell 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Lauren B. Weiner instead of Lori. Plenty of articles.
• Comment Tbeatty suggests that there is information in the public domain that would not be allowed on Wikipedia solely in view of our privacy policies; this is, to my knowledge and in view of my interpretations of Wikipedia policies, plainly incorrect. The revelant concerns we would confront in deciding whether "public domain" knowledge should be included in a Wikipedia article would be whether the information, if entered, would represent original research (where we would, I think, apply that appellative--the nebulous quality of which I readily recognize--to mean that information one posts on Wikipedia otherwise unpublished from a city's property tax record site would be original research, whilst information featured in a newspaper article about a given person's property tax records would not be original research; upon the latter determination, and in view of the publication of information elsewhere, a link could then be given to the primary source [i.e., here, the city's property tax record site]) and whether the information would be relevant to the article and of sufficient notability to be encyclopedic (as the privacy policy explains, even accurate phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc., are not considered encyclopedic; I don't believe the policy is framed as it is exclusively in view of privacy concerns, but also in view of notability/encyclopedic quality concerns). Notwithstanding Tbeatty's reasoned points apropos of the difficulties of creating a notability calculus by which to judge articles categorically, it is plainly wrong to say that there is public domain information that Wikipedia would not post out of privacy concerns; never would privacy concerns exclusively militate sufficiently against the inclusion of information to lead to the outcome of our removing/not adding information (of course, some users may feel different morally--I surely do not--but their views do not seem represented in the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia; in any case, there is surely no legal claim one can essay against another's posting publicly-available information about the former, so on those narrow grounds--which aren't exactly "on all fours" with the Brandt case but are with the hypos of which Tbeatty and I write--there can be made no legitimate objection to the inclusion of public information). Joe 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What I saying there is a notability standard that is arbitrary. The standard isn't whether there is public domain documents about a person. The standard isn't that the person was in the newspaper. The person who commented above me seemed to be saying that notability means there is a public record and therefore all people who have a public record could be notable. Certainly if we found original conviction documents of a notable person, that original document would be referenced. But what is a notable person? It is extremely arbitrary. I would argue Lauren B. Weiner is way more notable than Daniel Brandt. But Brandt pissed off a lot of Wikipedians so he is more notable to Wikipedians. That's an interesting standard but not exactly encyclopedic. It seems to me that it is a community vanity of sorts. As for privacy, if I posted information about "jaheigel" schooling, city of residence, POB, parental heritage, etc on my user page, it's a privacy violation and I would get banned. But if I create an article based on some dubious clame of notability, all that information would be up for a vote and editing. --Tbeatty 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentFWIW, I do provide all of that information on request and divulge most of it on my disorganized userpage. Irrespective of that, though, I have conceded that the "notability standards" are arbitrary, but I think it should be said that "notability", as I understand it, doesn't mean "popular notability", but, rather, "encyclopedic notability". Even as Lauren Weiner is better known to the public writ large at this time, Daniel Brandt is better known to <elitism> well-educated people </elitism> and to the public writ large in general (that is, he surely will be, over time, a more prominent personnage). I certainly don't think that notability stems from one's having publicly-accessible records, but I do think one's having 72,000 Ghits (cf., my having 173, of which more than half are about others who share my name) creates a presumption of notability, especially when the several on the first three pages are articles about the Brandt that feature interviews or quotes. Fundamentally, the question to be resolved, I think, is whether, absent Brandt's dealings with Wikipedia, anyone would still be suggesting that he's notable. I am sure that some who find him notable now do so largely or only in view of his involvement with Wikipedia (which isn't altogether wrong; I simply think that our project is still esoteric enough that his involvement with us isn't encylcopedic [as against, for example, his involvement with Google]), but I think the majority of us would find him notable irrespective of his Wikipedia involvement, toward which proposition I adduce the many failed AfD nominations for articles the subjects of which are surely "less notable" than Brandt my any standard, even one that he might create. Were you to create a page about me giving my city of residence, schooling, parentage, and POB, you almost surely would not be banned; we regularly have users create pages about individuals whom they think to be notable, and those users, where they are not acting in bad faith or attempting to damage the encyclopedia, are not banned. It is true that there is no singular standard by which to adjudge notability, such that not every Wikipedian would have the same reasons for thinking Brandt to be notable and me not to be notable, but, of course, there's some beauty in that; each Wikipedian has somewhat different views, the conflation of which becomes policy, with the idea that "the more voices, the better". Joe 23:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked up Ms. Weiner, I think your comparison is something of a stretch. Mr. Doyle's job arguably made him notable even before his arrest, while Ms. Weiner's almost certainly didn't, and Mr. Doyle committed a much more serious crime (and as a result received substantially more media coverage). I'm not upset that we have an article on Ms. Weiner, but I wouldn't be upset if her article got deleted or merged back to the scandal, either. It's pretty borderline, in my opinion. Once the community arrives at an "arbitrary" consensus, we'll go forward with that. Arbitrary doesn't always equal bad, y'know; pretty much every organized system is made up of a succession of arbitrary decisions, once you look at a certain level of granularity. If it really bothers you that much in this case, though, you could always start a centralized discussion on notability standards for activists, cranks and media gadflies, to apply to people like Mr. Brandt in the future (serving a function analagous to WP:MUSIC for musicians). As to what you're saying about Mr. Brandt himself, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that if he'd received the same amount of media coverage for criticizing something else (Flickr, say), he'd still have an article. The article is probably more highly developed now than it'd be if he'd criticized something with which the user base was less familiar, but that doesn't really matter, since on a long enough time frame the improvement by successive approximations will essentially even out. -Colin Kimbrell 23:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Brandt still hasn't woken up to the fact the notion of privacy evolves with the times; information technology is significantly impacting our privacy if we let it. (ie: we use the technology) Ultimately he needs to appreciate his notable actions belong to the public rather than private sphere. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, bad faith nom IMHO. Brandt is a notable individual. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  apologies, that was poor phrasing, as the bad faith is not on the part of the nominator but rather on the part of the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep if this guy doesnt like it he can just not look at it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.250.18.151 (talk • contribs)
  • This is an open proxy. It was blocked. BrokenSegue 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: he's not a public personality like a celebrity. If he doesn't want to be in wikipedia he should have that right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.244.7 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Notable, I find it odd that a prviacy nut wants this removed but posts the names and locations of underage wikipedians. Mike _{(T C)} 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cosign with above. Danny Lilithborne 06:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to inability to maintain any sense of neutrality with the article. Its existed for a long time now, and its never been even vaguely neutral. Whilst its true that he might be vaguely notable, he wouldn't exist in any paper encyclopaedia, and hence he's not so notable to be an automatic inclusion. This article is meta. It talks about Wikipedia Watch, a criticism of when Brandt used Wikipedia, and it talks about Wikipedia's responses. How can you have such an article when the people writing it all come from such an obviously biased place? At best, someone else should write this, and then we should copy that over to Wikipedia. But seriously, why do we include an article that the subject does not want, when what we are saying is wholly negative? The article itself must be verging on a personal attack and possibly even constitute libel. It is wrong on so many levels to even consider this article. 59.167.131.8 06:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Mr. Brandt is cited in the Register (14 March) and other publications in the last few weeks, which demonstrates his increasing notability. Jokestress 07:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to fulfil all criteria. The fact that Mr. Brandt doesn't want the article is no good reason to delete. Garion96 ^(talk) 16:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This guy does not want an article, so there should be no article. Will you all quit {personal attack removed} and voting "keep"? FGHT 17:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC) NOTE: This user has no prior edit history before this vote. This user also posted the following note at the top of this page (moved to a more appropriate position now):[reply]
  • Attention! Do not vote for keep because you think this is notable. This a not the question of notability, but whether or not the person who this article is telling about wants an article about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGHT (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: Wikipedia is not censored. Ever. For any reason. - CorbinSimpson 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: In theory, SqueakBox 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: There is plenty of censorship. Please review the |history so you can see why he was blocked. Oh wait, it's gone. And if you look long enough you will find articles that are "tidied up".--Tbeatty 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment and if he had kept quite he doubtless could have tidied up his own article in a quiet way but he made a big noise and now he can't do anything to the article, SqueakBox 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: You know something's wrong with the world when you have six nested lists. Also, what I meant is that by a prior concensus which led to an implementation of a policy, there is no obligation placed upon any individual user to censor or Bowdlerize an article, and that the only obligation that the Wikipedia organization has as a whole is to the State of Florida (and even that is theoretical, as there is no legislation that directly affects Wikipedia that I know of, and we have never been taken to court!). - CorbinSimpson 07:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: So why did wikipedia admins censor the user page? There was no obligation. There is a written policy on no censorship. The fact is they did it for their own self interest. The criticism of wikipedia page is also censored through an indefinite lock. --Tbeatty 16:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you feel so strongly about Brandt's user page, submit it for undeletion. I'll even vote undelete with you. Gamaliel 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete I really don't see him as being notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. I know he's involved with Wikipedia criticism, I suggest just merging the relevant info into Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch.--Toffile 01:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable; subject of reporting in major news outlets over many years. --Allen 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (After reading the whole debate above) Keep. Henrik 08:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.