Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)

Denny's source list

Moving it here per request. Don't edit this; its part of my AfD statement! - Denny 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note: If I tagged a source as "Significant Brandt" it means he's mentioned in a solid number of paragraphs relative to length of article/source")

Sources specifically about Brandt and/or Brandt's work.

(Note: this section alone qualifies as multiple published non-trivial sources and allows him to coast by even stringent WP:BIO if I understand it correctly)

1. Salon news, August 2002 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
2. Counterpunch news, January 2003 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
3. PC Magazine, June 2003 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
4. Web Pro News, January 2005 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
5. Linux Insider Magazine, December 2005 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
6. San Antonio Express News, December 2005 (Focuses on/is about Brandt) * (some have expressed concern it may not be RS, but that is debateable as of now)
7. People's Daily China, December 2005 (specifically about Brandt/Brandt's work)
8. Editor & Publisher, December 2005 (deleted from article, includes public commentary from Jimbo on Brandt/acknowledgements etc.)
9. The Register, April, 2006 - page 2 (Partially about Brandt himself, about 1/3 to 1/4 of article)
10. Quad City Times/AP, February 2007 (specifically about Brandt/Brandt's work)

Note that the Linux Insider story includes the passage, which says, "Unlike the Seigenthaler incident, Wales views Brandt as a notable public figure who just doesn't want to have his bio on Wikipedia."[1]

Sources citing Brandt as an authority on his privacy matters, establishing him as notable thus (or indeterminate for that source, but still RS)

1. United States v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1970)
2. The Christian Science Monitor p. 8., July 1989. Thatcher, Gary. Cloak-and-Dagger Database: Software Sniffs Out Secret Agents.
3. McCarthy, Jerry (January-March 1994). Mary Ferrell Profile. NameBase NewsLine, cited on Spartacus Educational
4. CBS News, March 2002 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
5. Secrecy News, March 2002 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
6. The Guardian, September 2002 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
7. Wired news, January 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
8. ZDNet news, March 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
9. St. Petersburg Times, April 2003 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
10. Sydney Morning Herald, April 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
11. The Telegraph UK, October 2003 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
12. Heartland news, December 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
13. Tech Review News, March 2004 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
14. The Register, March 2004 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
15. Daily Texas, April 2004 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
16. Web Pro News, January 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
17. Stepforth News, January 2005 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
18. Wired news, April 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
19. The Age.au, January 2005 (Significant Brandt/about his work, showing major RS view him as notable)
20. CNET News, June 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
21. The Guardian, October 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
22. Journalism.org, October 2005
23. USA Today, December 2005
24. New York Times, December 2005
25. ZDNet News, December 2005
26. ABC News, December 2005
27. Journalism.co.uk, December 2005
28. Associated Press, December 2005
29. CNN broadcast, December 2005
30. Guardian Unlimted, December 2005
31. Editor & Publisher, December 2005
32. News Factor News, January 2006
33. Washington Post, April 2006
34. Info Sec News, April 2006
35. Boston Herald, November 2006
36. Burlington Free Press, February 2007 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
37. Concept, accessed March 2007 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)

Some improvements you might like to make to your list

(x-posted from my talk page, replying below)

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but:

• this AlterNet article is just a copy of this Salon.com article;
• this ZDNet article is just a copy of this CNet article;
• this article in the Sydney Morning Herald is just a copy of this article from The Age;
• this article in the Seattle Times is just a copy of this article in the New York Times;
• this item from a SEO newsletter is just a copy of this item from a SEO newsletter;
• you have listed this news article twice;
• you've described this article as "establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy", even though it was written by Brandt.

Hopefully this will help you improve your list. --bainer (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks Bainer. I removed all the duplications. For the Web Pro News one, since he's writing articles on privacy and security for a notable source, that means they consider him an authority on the topics (thats why I included that one, that way, since it all compiles to establish notability IMHO). For the newsletter one, that seems to be a major news thing for that industry, and had been in his article as a source for quite a long time. thanks for the help. That cuts my list to 47, with 10 in the primary section. There may be more in the Google search I included, or if someone has Lexus Nexus-type access (I don't unfortunately!). - Denny 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, God?

Wikipedia does not need to follow your advice minutely. A consensus was reached to bring it forward a few days since it was going nowhere.

There were no complaints about this, yet you close early anyway. More time wasting. David Spart 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the place were "consensus" was reached over bringing this forward a few days? Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page for the article and at the hopeless drama that occurred this morning. I don't care either way but it doesn't make any difference whether people sit around thinking for a week or only four days. Especially considering that no one was thinking about anything and just continuing the wheel-war in new and innovative ways. And even so, once 50 people have given opinions without anyone objecting that it is "too early" is then I'm afraid is "too late". David Spart 00:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you consider it appropriate. Thats perfectly ok, but it is far from "consensus" to do so. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I never said that I approved of it. I didn't recommend it. I merely am answering your question. If you want my opinion see SlimVirgin's comment on the Brandt talk page. But the question is really for you: are you so tied to process that the mere recommendation of a closer on DRV is some kind of holy writ in your mind? Really who cares? I just don't want to see yet another 50 considered comments on the scrap heap for some daft reason. Do you? Would you prefer this same game again in three days time? David Spart 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. You claimed there was consensus for an early AfD. I asked you where consensus was reached. You replied that there was "hopeless drama this morning " and that "50 people have given opinions without anyone objecting". Neither of which answered my question. I am not saying that we should close the AfD. Now that it has started, we should let it run. But prior to starting the AfD, there was NO consensus reached that we should start it early. That is all that I am saying. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look I don't really care. There was certainly no dissent and has yet to be any - even you don't dissent. This is all moot now anyhow. David Spart 02:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And anyway, since when do you need a consensus to start an AfD? Because an admin( who has clandestine discussions about how to subvert wikipedia process on wikipediareview.com does something to give himself the best chance of getting his own way) wants to do something doesn't mean that's what should happen. David Spart 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What's clandestine about discussing something on a publicly visible website that you know in advance large numbers of Wikipedia editors are reading? --Michael Snow 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The users of the website all thought that google didn't index them, so they thought they were talking privatly, but in fact it is all in the google cache much to their chagrin. So you think that it is OK for a closing admin to prejudge the conclusion in a forum that regularly incites vandalism and disruption? David Spart 02:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Thebainer did prejudge the conclusion, I would suggest you read the thread more carefully including his subsequent post where he distinguishes the merits of the arguments in the debate from his personal preference. Furthermore, I'm curious as to where you get the information that the users of that website thought they weren't indexed by Google. --Michael Snow 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move up the AfD. Isotope23 suggested it and paused for all of one comment from SqueakBox before acting. --Michael Snow 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, in fairness, there was no consensus to have an AfD one week from now. It's also not clear that we needed yet another AfD when DRV seemed to show that most people wanted to delete keep it. Dragging the process out to AfD meant that another farce was guaranteed, and it doesn't make any difference whether we act it out now or in a few days time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's what deletion review showed at all. That's why a separate discussion was necessary. But this isn't it, and I'm beginning to doubt our ability to successfully have the discussion in either of those fora. --Michael Snow 02:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped above; I meant most people wanted to keep it. It was deleted out of process, and DRV, which is supposed to be based on a majority, overturned it. Therefore, there was no need for another AfD, never mind one postponed by a week. The more frequently this is discussed, the less chance there is that the discussion will be a rational one, because people get frustrated and positions become entrenched. This is the second time in the last few weeks I've seen an admin ignore the majority position in DRV about a BLP, which has had the effect of making DRV almost redundant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, another farce was gauranteed. Reading some of the wikipediareview forums I note Brandt and others saying that they will eventually wear wikipedia out. Which is why Thebain did what he did in ending the DRV. He planned the whole thing with Brandt et al. David Spart 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note about extention to March 12

March 12 is 1 week + 5 days from the day the DRV was closed. If the encyclopedia sucks for a while because we have an AfD header on Daniel Brandt's article for a while, that's okay. It will simply allow more time for people to give their arguments. Ashibaka (tock) 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you can WP:SNOW a discussion without cutting it off. The way this discussion was started, I fear it has a snowball's chance of hell of helping us build consensus on the article, no matter how long we let it run. Zocky | picture popups

The ArbCom is about to officially denounce WP:SNOW for controversial debates such as this one. I don't think closing this early, or 5 days after the early nomination, would be polite at all. Ashibaka (tock) 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about using WP:SNOW for anything. It's a dangerous piece of text that gets overused all the time. But this discussion was started before the agreed time, and because of that, we are not getting the well thought-out arguments that we were hoping for. As I say, my fear is that this AFD will not get over that. Zocky | picture popups 04:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no hope of consensus

How can a consensus ever be build here? Everyone has there own position - there are really only two:

• (a) Brandt doesnt want it, privacy BLP blah blah blah so Delete or Merge or something and
• (b) Brandt is notable and passes all the tests so Keep.

Everyone understands the other position and all the honest people that both (a) and (b) are true. So this is all a waste of energy. Under current rules (b) wins out, since there is no official provision for opting out. So, to build consensus the first step is to try and create a new policy to the extend that notable people can opt out of having an article. Until that discussion is had this will continue forever. David Spart 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're basically right, but there is no requirement for this to be done rightnowatthisverymomentwhiletheadrenalineisstillpumpingandicansmellvictoryintheethernet. This is an encyclopedia under construction and there is no deadline. Zocky | picture popups 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the views of those who want the article deleted. Most of us don't give a flying flip what the guy wants. Rather, we believe that we don't need articles on people with Wikipedia-only significance. Nobody outside of Wikipedia cares about Brandt. The same is true of the article on Essjay or on "Elephant (Wikipedia article)". We are an encyclopedia and we don't need self-referential fluff. --BigDT 04:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody outside of (insert field) cares about (subject in field). You could say this for most of the articles on Wikipedia. And it is patently false to say that nobody outside of Wikipedia cares about Brandt, as I doubt every writer of all the sources listed above is a Wikipedian. --- RockMFR 06:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shut this silly thing down

One of the users behind this bogus AfD says this: "He got more notable the more he fought, and the more attention he brought on himself by railing on and on. any circular increase in notability/notoriety he got, that I can tell from reading (good God, too many of these) articles and Wikipedia history is his own doing." Look at the list at the top of this page -- it's clearly designed to sabotage the vote. It's all self-referential, and a real encyclopedia would avoid this crap completely. This AfD is bogus and should be shut down. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.69 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How? Agreed, everyone wants this to stop, but absent some agreement about where to stop it, how do you propose stopping it without doing more damage? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say, your all-purpose picture for a teen on a computer is really overused. Your comments would be appreciated at the AfD, though. And Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Hojimachong^talk 06:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused. If the afd gets shut down the article remains whereas I had understood that you want the article deleted. If you want to see the article deleted you should vote on the afd yourself, SqueakBox 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for thebainer (talk · contribs) to NOT close this AfD, per this Wikipedia Review post

thebainer (talk · contribs) was the closer of the Brandt DRV here. Shortly afterwards, he made a post on Wikipedia review here, which I think should concern all editors interested in this debate. Here are some quotes, in bold, with my comments afterward in plaintext:

"Hardly anyone thought the article should be kept; the rest wanted the deletion overturned because it was 'out of process'." - Completely untrue. By my count, there were 76 votes to keep deleted, 71 votes to overturn based purely on process, and 40 votes to overturn that explicitly say that the subject is notable enough for an article. See for yourselves.

"This time there is a mandate for a full debate (which won't be speedily closed) and I think the consensus is moving towards deleting the article." - Highly doubtful. First, the votes were 111-76 to overturn deletion, and 40 of those endorsed keep based on notability. I am willing to bet that a significant percentage of the overturn votes that only expressed a process opinion would convert to AfD keeps. Second, the overturns only picked up steam as the DRV went along and were clearly dominating towards the end; if anything, consensus was moving away from deletion.

"That's a fair assessment." - With this pithy four-word sentence thebainer is agreeing with a section of a post by Brandt, which he quotes in full. The Brandt quote that thebainer reproduces and responds to ends with this summary of Brandt's opinion of "keep" Wikipedia voters: "It's not like they have any of their own interests at stake, apart from their little joysticks driven by their little brains." Thanks for supporting your fellow editors, thebainer.

"I plan to close it. I seem to do fairly well at closing otherwise controversial debates and making the result stick. I deleted Gregory Lauder-Frost's article, for example, when the debate was split 50/50 on the numbers, and when there had been dozens of previous conversations that didn't get anywhere." - Wow - so you're boasting about how you closed a previous AfD on a controversial article that was nowhere near consensus as delete, and in the same paragraph you express your intention of closing this AfD? I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions about thebainer's intentions with this AfD. Needless to say, I have drawn mine.

- Merzbow 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember that AFD is not a vote. A good admin will sometimes close something against the numbers, it is the arguments that matter. I'm sure that whichever admin closes this will make sure that they are squeeky clean from previous involvement, and that they explain their decision, even if it's no-consensus. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This close had better be cleaner than the Harvard Medical School brain-surgery operating room, or the community will continue to be fractured. I am just stunned at thebainer's exceptionally poor judgment at both closing the DRV and promising to be the one to close the AfD while making the comments he's making above, in the venue he made them. - Merzbow 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who was both hip-deep in the GLF foofaraw and opposed to its deletion, I think thebainer did a fantastic job closing it. I think it was the wrong decision for Wikipedia to make, but I think the closing was a thoughtful, clear, and appropriate sifting of the community opinion into a useful decision. I would feel better if he didn't close this one after closing the DRV, though, so there's no chance of misinterpretation by spectators. And I agree that whoever does it, the close has to be cleaner than clean. William Pietri 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thebainer made the right decision and purely because he closed the drv he shouldnt close the afd, SqueakBox 19:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As the guy that found thebainer's wikipedia review thing and reading all this mess again, again: sorry for causing a flare up... his DRV close was awesome and fair, and logical. I agree someone else should close this though, and don't have an opinion on people posting to both sites right now. I still throw in my $0.02 that the close of the afd should be done by a group of admins. Posting below... - Denny 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra Optional Question

Normally, no-consensus is one possible outcome of and AFD. In this case, there are a number of people would prefer a decision, any decision, to no-consensus. To assist the closing admin in being bold, or not, please consider adding your name below. Thanks, Ben Aveling 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In the event that, come the close of this AFD, there is no clear consensus, would you prefer that the closing admin makes a decision one way or the other anyway, or would you prefer 'no-consensus'?

1. Delete it regardless what the vote is. Grace Note 09:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I want this over. Please don't return no-consensus, I will abide by the decision, whatever it is:

1. Ben Aveling 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Ashibaka (tock) 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

With goodwill, consensus will eventually be reached. I'd rather see no-consensus than have the decision go the wrong way:

1. Not exactly my position, but close to it. While no consensus does give admins more leeway about how to close things, admins should be careful about doing so especially in highly controversial cases like this one. JoshuaZ 07:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
2. If there's no consensus, there's no consensus. That should never be determined strictly from a "head-count", but looking at the discussion, it appears to me that right now there really is no clear consensus one way or the other. If that's still the case at the end, that's how it should be closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
3. was about to say same as Seraphimblade when I was stopped by an edit conflict Alf^Photoman 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
4. I don't see why usual wikipedia closing policy should be altered at all here, on the contrary. In this case it is crucial that policy is followed precisely without any licence on the part of the closing admin(s). Since one way or the other there will be loads of votes on both sides anything other than a strict interpretation of policy will lead to more chaos a certain DRV and another AfD. This vote - me thinks - is a power play by people who want to delete it. Note the language above: "I will abide by the decision whatever it is" - implying perhaps that if their position here is not accepted and the article is kept through "no consensus" that will not be enough for them and they wont accept it, but continue this gayness on and on. David Spart 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing suggestion for least hurt feelings/problems

I'd mentioned this idea in a few places but got no replies that I noticed (or misplaced the place I posted it on my watchlist)... Simple closing idea:

1. Once the time (since we aren't closing early) expires on the AfD, protect the page, put up a "being deliberated" notice, and a recommendation that any "late" news go to the talk page, here.
2. Five admins close this down together, and deliberate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)/closing.
3. Those five together decide based on policy what to do, based on the consensus here. They can figure out the specifics amongst themselves of how to decide specific points before digging into the meat...
4. Recommend an arb-com style thing, 3 of 5 needed to pass a point (points derived from consensus points on AfD, like how Bainer did the DRV)
5. Having five admins together decide is the best way to do this so no-one can call foul later, and anyone trying to reverse them and cause more problems in any direction, be it keep or delete, would be disrupting.
6. Protect the deliberation page, and no one else is allowed to post there but the five admins. Just RV out anything else for simplicity sake.
7. Recommend their decisions be binding on community (punishable by blocks to discourage POINT warriors...) for 6 months to a year barring OFFICE stuff or ArbCom action. Yes, yes, I know no "binding decisions" but we are into IAR territory now anyway right? Might as well end how it began.

I nominate...

1. User:Doug_Bell (seems neutral)
2. User:GRBerry (seems neutral)
3. User:AnonEMouse (seems neutral)
4. User:JoshuaZ (seems pro-keep)
5. User:SlimVirgin (seems pro-delete)

thanks. - Denny 06:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this idea is interesting, although I'm not sure it makes sense to put people on all of whom have been previously involved. It might make sense to include admins who have had no connection. Also the last point about blocking issues seems bad, if someone attempts to respond disruptively to anything, whether this article or something else, they will be blocked, generally how ever long (or short) is necessary. Having specific mentions of a time maximum is less then helpful. JoshuaZ 08:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the most impartial admin who has been marginally involved would seem to be Isotope. JoshuaZ 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse !voted "strong keep", so I'm not sure he can be considered neutral. Trebor 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

to both Joshua and Trebor... it could always be different names, of course, or admins that didn't weigh in on in the AfD... - Denny 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trebor is right, I participated in the discussion, and would have to recuse from closing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In other instances I would go for it, but the last thing we need is a LEX BRANDT. This case has to be done like they all are or we never hear the end of this Alf^Photoman 13:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just thought having 5 instead of 1 close it means that no one person has to deal with the heat, no one person gets the chance to do a controversial thing. What if someone makes a decision that goes against visible consensus (which is clearly into the keep/strong keep now)? Having it done/back by multiple people immediately at close puts nails in the coffine right away for better or worse, keep or delete. otherwise back to DRV, or someone speedies again, etc. - Denny 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

<cynicism and manipulative thinking> So in that case, as someone favoring keeping, I should not like this proposal since it makes it more likely that a delete will stick. </cynicism and manipulative thinking> . Joking aside, that's a very good reason to have this closed by a committee. JoshuaZ 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But beware of the precedent .... it will stay with us forever and pop up at every controversial AfD Alf^Photoman 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A committee close doesn't strike me as a bad precedent to set. JoshuaZ 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Then lets discuss it at some other point when it does not look like we are making a LEX BRANDT Alf^Photoman 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, closing by committee based on Afd consensus... it would *have* to reflect consensus. Plus if it went DRV after, how would they argue vs. a consensus of a concensus? It's a failsafe. - Denny 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have as much concern about a "Lex Brandt" as you do. We wouldn't need to call it that, and I'd rather have this matter resolved even if that means more recognition to Brandt. Not doing sensible things out of concern of giving Brandt recognition is about as bad as arguing for keeping the article to spite him. JoshuaZ 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am always worried about special rules, no matter what the cause because special rules lead to more special rules which in turn ... if you don't believe me just take a look at government laws. A law that would have passed a century ago on a single legal size piece of paper now fills dozens of binders. And sincerely just digging a hole and putting the problem in there does not make it go away, it makes it bigger Alf^Photoman 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

my thinking wasn't special rules but rather a finality either way. The problem is that people are ignoring rules (IAR) that caused this whole mess, right? No one can argue that IAR did this, and brought it here. Having 5 admins close based on policy and consensus means that anyone who than IARs and undoes their close is just disrupting to continue fighting. It's to help close this mess. And if it works... hey, cool. It can be pulled out for other 'special' closes as needed later. - Denny 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There will only be closure in this case if the conflicting interests of some editors can be resolved. If you take a good look at this mess you will find that there are people around that would do anything to get their faces off Brandt's webpage and those that are not willing to give in to blackmail coercion and those that principally are opposed to any breach in the rules (oops, we don't have rules... we have guidelines) no matter at what cost and those uninvolved in the main problem that are at it out of principle. As long as these are not resolved we won't see the end of it, no matter how many new rules we make. And anybody who thinks that Brandt is just going to lay down and die because we deleted his article upon his request does not know the rationale of those who desperately are clinging on a tiny shred of notability Alf^Photoman 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats the best reason to committee it--no one can call foul then, and we just slap a "revert this close for 6 months or a year and get banned" note or whatever to lock it in. Not a new rule... a solution... - Denny 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... but where are you going to find anybody uninvolved enough in any of the above groups? Because if you nominate anybody to the committee involved in this one way or the other the ones with conflicting interests will scream foul, no matter what decision one of the groups will scream foul and try to create rules that will overrule the six month time period and off we go again. My opinion is that we have to live with extremes and this case is one of those inconveniences Alf^Photoman 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, having one person who previously favored keeping, one who favored deleton and a few uninvolved admins might make sense (although at this point, most of the active admins are involved). JoshuaZ 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is only one of the points. A solution for this in the future would be to appoint or elect a permanent committee that resolves this type of disputes. But the wrong time for any of these proposal is a time like this when emotions run high. Alf^Photoman 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... shouldn't a solution be for a problem. Problem... solution. - Denny 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we ask Rossami to close this. He is very good at closing contentious discussions with an eye to consensus as well as policy, and best of all, he has impressed me with the way he can reason the close in a way which almost everybody will find understandable. He has not closed an AFD for a long time as far as I can see, but I think it would be a good thing to bring him back into this business. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as the closing admin isn't involved previously, and makes a good faith and reasoned close, it doesn't matter who they are - I'll back that decision to the hilt, no matter what it is. I would quote Mark Twain here if it wouldn't make me look like a dork. Rossami would be good, though. Neil (not Proto ►) 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have a committee for this sort of thing - arbcom. However it is closed, I would like to shown to arbcom first and at the very least have them say they've seen it and don't disapprove. WAS 4.250 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Should have thought of it... I'll second that Alf^Photoman 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So ArbCom check/endorse the close? with their voting structure? How does that work for this? - Denny 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is probably the best idea I've seen here. I don't know if Arbcom would want to get involved, but the idea of a committee close by admins who are not involved in this is an excellent idea here. I've already taken a bunch of shit (perhaps rightfully so) for having started this AfD before it was apparently intended to go forward; no reason for a single closer to get beat up on as well.--Isotope23 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. ArbCom does not handle content disputes. This is not within the committee's authority nor should it be. JoshuaZ 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a dramatic shift in voting paterns this will not be required since the admin would not be able to claim much discretion in a case where there are a) hundreds of opinions and b) aprox 3 to 1 split to keep. So this may well be moot. David Spart 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

State of the debate after four days

After four days (18:00, 6th March 2007) a summary of the "debate" (such as it is) is presented:

Arguments for keeping:

• (a) Notable per WP:BIO.
• (b) Good article, well sourced.

Arguments for deleting:

• (c) Subject does not want an article here, so let him not have it.
• (d) Causes Wikipedia problems, not worth the all the trouble.
• (e) Subject is actually not fantastically notable. These claims have either centered around a notion of "marginally notable" or in a minority of cases attempted to argue that he does not in fact meet WP:BIO.
• (f) Notability is a guideline not a policy.

Arguments against deleting:

• (g) Argument (c) is not policy, is censorship and would be a bad precedent.
• (h) Even if it is a lot of work, nobody is forced to edit it, and this is not policy.
• (i) Marginal notability has no basis in policy, is vague and has no clear lines associated with it.

Tally of opinions expressed:

• 107 Keeps
• 39 Deletes
• 4 merges/stubifys
• 1 Imperial Xenu Delete
• 1 Linuxbreak solution
• 1 "Oh my God, Fuck you too, bitch"

I cannot guarantee the figures are totally accurate. David Spart 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last was not an opinion as such, but rather a reply to a previously phrased opinion. Also, in all honesty, arguments expressed for deleting include "Subject is not notable." --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But according to the bar set by WP:BIO, Brandt is notable. The delete voters who advocate that he is not notable are using a criteria beyond WP:BIO. Now if WP:BIO is changed to this more stringent criteria, then maybe the delete voters would have something. But the majority of delete arguments are (c) & (d). Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at that straw fly! Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to (h), "notability" itself has no basis in policy. The concept of what is notable per WP:N is a guideline. As I said somewhere before on the main page, just because a subject meets WP:N does not mean we have to have an article on the subject, just like we don't automatically have to delete a subject who falls short of the WP:N criteria.--Isotope23 20:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note in the above about that although I have to say it has gotten almost *no* discussion in the AfD so presumably not many users find it relevant. JoshuaZ 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interesting how our "guidelines" are starting to be applied as if they were "rules".--Isotope23 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought that now would be the time for anyone also to try to point that out together with the guideline v. policy difference. But apparently not. JoshuaZ 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

'Imperial Xenu Delete' has not been removed. Hut 8.5 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add to the arguments against deleting that removing contentious articles would a) increase systemic bias, and b) give an incentive for people seeking deletion to create contention around an article. William Pietri 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The second argument has been brought up by multiple users in the discussion but not many. I don't think the first one has been brought up at all (of course, you are welcome to do so on the AfD page). However, I think the above is meant as a summary of what major arguments have been used, not an attempt to rehash every possible detail. JoshuaZ 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had, but I've made it clearer. Thanks, William Pietri 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Say, for those who count noses on things like this, I found the Firefox extension "XPath Checker" helpful. You can use XPaths like these

• id('bodyContent')/ul/li/b/text()[contains(.,'eep')]
• id('bodyContent')/ul/li/b/text()[contains(.,'erge')]
• id('bodyContent')/ul/li/b/text()[contains(.,'elete')]

to pull out and count the summaries. It's not perfect, as people use bold for other things, so it shouldn't be used when closing, but it is a quick way to get a sense of the numbers. Oh, and you can't see all the items return, just make the window bigger until the scroll bar appears. William Pietri 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dry run of a close

Suppose this were closed with the above assessment and vote proportions. Under those conditions, does anyone think it would be proper to close with anything but "keep"? If not then we all agree that if the proportions hold then it must be keep and we have a consensus for what to do. If anyone wishes to argue that the proper thing under those conditions is something else such as stub or move content to other pages, speak now and not as part of a race to close with your unique personal insight into what is right (in other words, get consensus now for a different interpretation and not later). And please don't turn this into a vote to interpret the vote. This is a conversation. WAS 4.250 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

why don't we wait until the thing is closed ... not good to count corpses before the battle is done, bad for morale Alf^Photoman 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisting

I know it's pretty late to be bringing this up, but since the debate was extended partly for those who weren't expecting it to happen for a week, wouldn't it have helped them find the debate by relisting it at the one-week mark? --Groggy Dice T | C 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That was tried and the result was an almost lynched administrator Alf^Photoman 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

when was this, I didn't see that mentioned here? - Denny 15:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See above under WHO ARE YOU (&Blasphemy) (smirk) Alf^Photoman 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah. I thought you meant someone wanted to relist the AfD after x days on the AfD log pages, for more fresh exposure to it and someone flipped. I would have supported that (if half of WP hadn't already spoken, I guess). - Denny 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wikipedia really owes Brandt big time:

Gosh. He should be given every barnstar in the world and not just his own article. David Spart 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite as big as the Seigenthaler effect, but I would also be interested to see this graph post-Essjay (acknowledging it may be too soon to see trends right now). IronGargoyle 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am more interested in seeing the post-essjay donation graph.... Alf^Photoman 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found it hard to believe that this controversy would give that much of a lift to wikipedia's traffic. Andjam 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that WP's traffic can get that much higher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the Seigenthaler controversy, not the Essjay one! Andjam 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It really proves that old publicity maxim: Within a month of the controversy, Wikipedia had doubled its page views. This wasn't a flash in the pan - as the graph shows it simply started at exponential trend that continues 'till today. The alexa graph is also an underestimation as it shows growth as a percentage of all internet traffic - which is growing itself (by all accounts) by some 3% a month. David Spart 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also note - and I think this is the important stat - that public awareness of wikipedia seems to have surged. Wikipedia stas (see here) shows that the number of new wikipedians per month doubled (and has since maintained that level) in response to Sigenwhateverhisnameis and Brandt's actions early in December 2006. Looking at the charts together one gets the impression that if it were not for Brandt wikipedia would only be about 70% of its current size and quality. Thus Brandt is possibly the greatest contributor to our project after Jimbo (and that other guy who claims he invented it.) He should be unblocked immediately and given every barnstar that we have.

Someone should do a study into this. Brandt was a pivotal moment in wikipedia history. Suddenly 100 of millions of people were aware that there was a website that they could write in - and vandalise! That was the basis of the story. So many tried and many stayed.

Hip hip hooray for Daniel Brandt. David Spart 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

slight reformatting

Based on some confused comments I just saw. Please feel free to rv out the new section labels I added if inappropriate... just wanted to clear it up a bit... - Denny 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Daniel Brandt

The text below was posted by Daniel Brandt on the discussion just now, but removed by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) [2]. I do not want to start a revert war about it on the main page, but thought it might be good idea to post it here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• Comment: My opinion doesn't count because I've been banned for almost a year, but I nevertheless have an opinion. There are issues which no one has addressed in this farce of an AfD. First, about one-third of my biography is self-referential for Wikipedia. It's the equivalent of the World Book Encyclopedia having an entry on someone associated with Encyclopedia Britannica simply because that someone criticized World Book. No, it's worse than that. It's as if World Book started a negative article on someone who worked at Britannica, and then when that someone criticized the World Book for doing so, the article in World Book got longer and longer, mainly by referring to these criticisms. Either the self-referential material should be deleted, or Wikipedia should stop calling itself an encyclopedia. Second, there is no information on my education, or my three years in graduate school, primarily because such information in not easily found unless the subject of the article consents to the article. Third, there is no information on my employment history for the same reason. Fourth, the information about President Carter's draft amnesty was deleted, but the draft-card burning information was kept, an act that is prejudicial. Fifth, the year of birth was deleted, primarily because no one could figure out whether it was 1947 or 1948. Sixth, no one at Wikipedia has found a photo of me anywhere on the web. Seventh, the Google Watch stuff is about as notable as someone starting a blog on some topic. The only reason it has more than its fair share of citations on the web is because it was the first anti-Google website, and when it started no one could believe that anyone could be anti-Google. Eighth, the NameBase material is biased. It's not a "quirky" index. Ask Oliver North how quirky it is. NameBase led a reporter to the person who put up Oliver North's security gate, which resulted in North's only conviction (for accepting an illegal gratuity). This was covered in the Washington Post. Picking out a quotation that uses the word "quirky" to describe NameBase suggests bias. (The same source also says it was started in the 1960s, which would have been difficult since I would have needed a mainframe and IBM punch cards to start it that early.) Ninth, the cookie stuff at CIA and NSA is trivial. One fax to each agency and the problem was solved. It played in the press because no one understands cookies, which in turn gave the press an opportunity to hype it. The bottom line is that Wikipedia should not pretend that it is competent to write biographies of living persons without the subject's consent and cooperation. Without that cooperation, the article at best ends up as a loose collection of facts, most of which would be irrelevant in a balanced biography. At worst, it ends up as malicious libel that uses verifiability and notability as convenient cover. The motives of those who voted KEEP are clearly suspicious, based on their own justifications. This AfD was front-loaded with a prejudicial list of citations, which is improper. Posters for candidates are supposed to stay a certain distance away from the voting booths -- why doesn't this apply to Wikipedia? Most of those voting KEEP have no familiarity with me or the article, which makes them drive-by voters who only seek to amuse themselves. This is also improper. This entire AfD is a disgrace for all of Wikipedia. -Daniel Brandt 68.91.89.24 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---