581:
whether we like it or not, his
Knowledge (XXG) criticism) has been covered in many notable publications with wide circulation, online and offline (the article had 33 references, many of them to reliable secondary sources). Whatever criteria we define for "borderline" notability, they need to be fairly and consistently applied. If this article is supposed to be the measure of such a set of criteria, too many other articles will be deleted. Moreover, the abuse of process in this particular case will embolden those who confuse self-righteousness with reason. This deletion seems more like an emotional backlash than a rational evaluation of the facts to me, and as such, brings us dangerously close to
661:. If not, however, since this article was deleted in order to get Brandt to stop "troubling" Knowledge (XXG) I say we check back after a bit and see whether he actually has stopped. If he hasn't, then it doesn't matter whether having the article is "worth the trouble" because we've got the trouble regardless and so we might as well get an article out of the deal.
518:. Concur with Bastique. I know I've taken a contrary position in the past, and was duly rewarded with a profile on wikipedia-watch (the picture does me little justice though, and is decidely out-of-date). A redirect to GoogleWatch seems sensible enough. I also join those suggesting that the debate be kept open five days or so.
294:, especially in the face of articles that appeal to the vanity of wikipedia (about us, our adminstrators, our process, or our side products). Ask yourself - how does this help our goal of being an encyclopedia about FACTS rather than an encyclopedia with the bestest political wars, and documentation of internet trivialities?
379:
I found the article - it was a redirect and now it's blank with the AfD template at the top. I know I can go through the history to dig up the article but AfD'ing a blank article is really weird. This entire process stinks and I have no idea what we're being asked to do or discuss since it appears
334:
how can we have an AfD on a red link? For one thing, it's hard for me to make up my mind if I can't read what I'm voting on; I have read the article before, but it's been quite a while. This was done very poorly; unilateral deletion was absolutely the wrong way to go about this. It should have gone
360:
Regardless, I refuse to vote on it as a matter of principle. It is for the community to decide whether we should have the article, and then for an admin to follow through on that decision; in this case an admin has already made the decision, and the community is just being told to rubber-stamp it.
580:
I agree in principle with the notion that borderline bios may be deleted on the subject's request. As someone who was familiar with Brandt's work before I ever saw his article on
Knowledge (XXG), I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding,
549:
There hasn't been any sudden *public* change regarding the situation of otherwise dubious-in-notability article subject (Oversight, WP:OFFICE, etc.) to warrant what appears to be unilateral behavior by one possessing the proverbial bucket and mop.
457:. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles.
233:
You do understand that it was your unilateral actions that sparked the current discussions? Perhaps you could have just taken this here in the first place rather than trying to "sneak deletions" through the so-called back door.
140:
137:
134:
131:
128:
125:
122:
119:
116:
90:
113:
290:
Just some guy who wrote some nasty stuff about some website that got mentioned in passing. This is not non-trival coverage in multiple reliable sources. We need to have
370:
I completely agree. How can we discuss deleting an article that has already been deleted? What the hell is going on here and what are we being asked to discuss? --
110:
409:(or keep deleted, rather). Our usual arguments over the exact semantics of the notability guidelines shouldn't distract us from that "do no harm" bit in
58:
585:
as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--
193:
and review abuse of WP:SNOW since I've seen it abused more than once in my short time paying attention to the behind-the-scenes junk. --
17:
176:
665:
653:
634:
612:
592:
572:
554:
541:
525:
510:
496:
485:
465:
437:
417:
393:
384:
374:
365:
355:
343:
326:
282:
263:
238:
228:
206:
197:
185:
151:
73:
52:
291:
219:, there are serious ego issues going on here in regards to everything. I used to love this site, but I'm slightly revolted.
180:
680:
36:
608:
600:
It would be easier to delete and forget about it, I admit that, but I don't do things because they are easy. --
679:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
425:- Doesn't seem that notable on his own merits, when viewed without the "ARRRGH WIKIPEDIA!" goggles in place. -
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
538:
493:
339:, while it still existed, not deleted outside of process, then put on DRV, then put on AfD as a red link.
172:
49:
143:
The current DRV is turning into a farce the way it's going, so let's settle this "correctly", then.
522:
414:
319:
299:
66:
361:
The article should be restored and then the AfD should be restarted if this is going to be valid.
311:
662:
433:
106:
650:
628:
589:
257:
220:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
164:
problems and the fact that the subject doesn't want it make deleting the better choice here.
161:
482:
390:
352:
203:
165:
148:
643:
563:
454:
410:
216:
102:
98:
348:
86:
605:
586:
568:
519:
362:
340:
315:
295:
277:
62:
458:
426:
79:
647:
623:
534:
381:
371:
273:
250:
194:
248:
no point in keeping for the sake of keeping. Also per my reasons on the last AfD.
551:
478:
453:. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the
235:
582:
507:
268:
I ask that WP:SNOW not be used on this AfD (since it's NOT policy). Perhaps a
601:
566:. I am surprised that this article has lasted so long, actually.
673:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
477:
close this early? It's just not worth the trouble. Thank you. --
389:
There's been a request at ANI to restore the last revision. –
473:: Even with nearly 100% delete !votes by now, can we please
380:
to have already been decided to delete this article. --
492:
Strongly seconded. There's no rush, so do this right.
160:
Borderline notability at best, combined with massive
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
46:Still on DRV - no consensus to overturn and relist
683:). No further edits should be made to this page.
533:- I'm confused... this article is a redirect to
59:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Daniel Brandt
8:
97:Seriously now. Not notable personality,
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
57:DRV in case you desire to be heard:
578:Overturn deletion and keep article.
537:. What are you all talking about?
24:
306:16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1:
666:17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
654:17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
635:17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
613:17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
593:17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
573:17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
555:17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
542:17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
526:17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
511:17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
497:17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
486:17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
466:17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
455:Biographies of Living persons
438:17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
418:17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
394:17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
385:17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
375:17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
366:17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
356:17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
344:16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
327:17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
283:16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
264:16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
239:17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
229:16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
207:16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
198:16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
186:16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
152:16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
74:17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
53:17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
620:Seems to be notable enough.
506:For all the right reasons.--
276:and protect said redirect?--
202:This is an AFD, not DRV. –
700:
676:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
310:delete and redirect to
87:Daniel Brandt (cached)
292:WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY
539:Walton monarchist89
611:
430:
323:
303:
184:
70:
691:
678:
631:
626:
604:
571:
462:
443:Endorse Deletion
428:
321:
301:
280:
260:
253:
226:
223:
170:
68:
34:
699:
698:
694:
693:
692:
690:
689:
688:
687:
681:deletion review
674:
633:
629:
624:
567:
460:
278:
262:
258:
251:
224:
221:
83:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
697:
695:
686:
685:
669:
668:
656:
637:
621:
615:
595:
575:
557:
544:
528:
513:
500:
499:
489:
488:
468:
440:
420:
415:Kirill Lokshin
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
387:
329:
285:
266:
256:
243:
242:
241:
211:
210:
209:
188:
95:
94:
82:
77:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
696:
684:
682:
677:
671:
670:
667:
664:
663:Bryan Derksen
660:
657:
655:
652:
649:
645:
641:
638:
636:
632:
627:
619:
616:
614:
610:
607:
603:
599:
596:
594:
591:
588:
584:
579:
576:
574:
570:
565:
561:
558:
556:
553:
548:
545:
543:
540:
536:
532:
529:
527:
524:
521:
517:
514:
512:
509:
505:
502:
501:
498:
495:
491:
490:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
467:
464:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
439:
435:
431:
424:
421:
419:
416:
412:
408:
405:
395:
392:
388:
386:
383:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
368:
367:
364:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
333:
330:
328:
325:
317:
313:
309:
305:
297:
293:
289:
286:
284:
281:
275:
271:
267:
265:
261:
255:
254:
247:
244:
240:
237:
232:
231:
230:
227:
218:
215:
212:
208:
205:
201:
200:
199:
196:
192:
189:
187:
182:
178:
174:
169:
168:
163:
159:
156:
155:
154:
153:
150:
146:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
108:
104:
100:
92:
88:
85:
84:
81:
80:Daniel Brandt
78:
76:
75:
72:
64:
60:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
675:
672:
658:
639:
617:
597:
577:
559:
546:
535:Google Watch
530:
515:
503:
474:
470:
451:Keep deleted
450:
446:
442:
422:
406:
349:Google cache
336:
331:
312:Google watch
307:
287:
274:Google Watch
269:
249:
245:
213:
190:
166:
157:
144:
96:
56:
45:
43:
31:
28:
167:ObiterDicta
609:(cntrbtns)
583:ochlocracy
587:Eloquence
569:(jarbarf)
520:Mackensen
363:Everyking
341:Everyking
316:Hipocrite
296:Hipocrite
279:Wizardman
173:pleadings
135:seriously
63:Hipocrite
598:Overturn
547:Overturn
332:Comment:
308:addendum
270:redirect
259:(o rly?)
191:Overturn
107:WP:SENSE
91:View log
648:ElinorD
531:Comment
471:Comment
429:HAIRBOY
382:ElKevbo
372:ElKevbo
335:to AfD
252:Majorly
195:Dookama
181:appeals
162:WP:SELF
129:trouble
651:(talk)
644:WP:BLP
640:Delete
564:WP:BLP
560:Delete
552:Bumm13
523:(talk)
516:Delete
504:Delete
494:Trebor
459:Bastiq
447:Delete
423:Delete
411:WP:BLP
407:Delete
391:Chacor
353:Chacor
288:Delete
246:Delete
236:Bumm13
217:WP:BLP
214:Delete
204:Chacor
177:errata
158:Delete
149:Chacor
145:Delete
117:really
103:WP:BLP
99:WP:IAR
606:(tlk)
508:MONGO
479:Conti
337:first
120:worth
16:<
659:Keep
642:per
630:Toth
618:Keep
602:malo
562:per
351:. –
322:Talk
302:Talk
222:Yank
147:. –
114:this
69:Talk
625:Aza
475:not
272:to
225:sox
141:No.
126:the
123:all
89:– (
50:Doc
48:. -
646:.
449:,
445:,
436:)
413:.
318:-
314:.
298:-
179:•
175:•
171:(
111:Is
109:.
105:,
101:,
65:-
61:.
622:→
590:*
483:✉
481:|
463:e
461:▼
434:☎
432:(
427:C
324:»
320:«
304:»
300:«
183:)
138:?
132:?
93:)
71:»
67:«
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.