| Revision as of 17:12, 23 February 2007 editEloquence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,329 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:13, 1 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Still on DRV - no consensus to overturn and relist'''. -]<sup>g</sup> 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| DRV in case you desire to be heard: ]. ] - ] 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| ⚫ | : – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| Seriously now. Not notable personality, ], ], ]. ] ] ] ] ] ] ]] ]] ] The current DRV is turning into a farce the way it's going, so let's settle this "correctly", then. '''Delete'''. – ] 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | Seriously now. Not notable personality, ], ], ]. ] ] ] ] ] ] ]] ]] ] The current DRV is turning into a farce the way it's going, so let's settle this "correctly", then. '''Delete'''. – ] 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Borderline notability at best, combined with massive] problems and the fact that the subject doesn't want it make deleting the better choice here. ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Borderline notability at best, combined with massive] problems and the fact that the subject doesn't want it make deleting the better choice here. ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn''' 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. --] 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Overturn''' 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. --] 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **This is an AFD, not DRV. – ] 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | **This is an AFD, not DRV. – ] 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' ], there are serious ego issues going on here in regards to everything. I used to love this site, but I'm slightly revolted. ] 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' ], there are serious ego issues going on here in regards to everything. I used to love this site, but I'm slightly revolted. ] 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ** 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. ] 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' no point in keeping for the sake of keeping. Also per my reasons on the last AfD. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*'''Delete''' no point in keeping for the sake of keeping. Also per my reasons on the last AfD. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *I ask that WP:SNOW not be used on this AfD (since it's NOT policy). Perhaps a '''redirect''' to ] and protect said redirect?--] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete''' 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 ], 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? ] - ] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ''addendum'' delete and redirect to ]. ] - ] 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' 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 ], 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? ] - ] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ''addendum'' delete and redirect to ]. ] - ] 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment:''' 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 to AfD ''first'', while it still existed, not deleted outside of process, then put on DRV, then put on AfD as a red link. ] 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment:''' 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 to AfD ''first'', while it still existed, not deleted outside of process, then put on DRV, then put on AfD as a red link. ] 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 24: | ||
| ***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. The article should be restored and then the AfD should be restarted if this is going to be valid. ] 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ***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. The article should be restored and then the AfD should be restarted if this is going to be valid. ] 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ****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? --] 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ****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? --] 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *****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 to have already been decided to delete this article. --] 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****There's been a request at ANI to restore the last revision. – ] 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *****There's been a request at ANI to restore the last revision. – ] 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' (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 ]. ] 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' (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 ]. ] 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' - Doesn't seem that notable on his own merits, when viewed without the "ARRRGH WIKIPEDIA!" goggles in place. - ]</small> (]) 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' - Doesn't seem that notable on his own merits, when viewed without the "ARRRGH WIKIPEDIA!" goggles in place. - ] (]) 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse Deletion''', '''Delete''', '''Keep deleted'''. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the ]. 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse Deletion''', '''Delete''', '''Keep deleted'''. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the ]. 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Comment''': Even with nearly 100% delete !votes by now, can we please '''not''' close this early? It's just not worth the trouble. Thank you. --]|] 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Comment''': Even with nearly 100% delete !votes by now, can we please '''not''' close this early? It's just not worth the trouble. Thank you. --]|] 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 24: | Line 35: | ||
| *'''Comment''' - I'm confused... this article is a redirect to ]. What are you all talking about? ] 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - I'm confused... this article is a redirect to ]. What are you all talking about? ] 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Overturn''' 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. ] 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Overturn''' 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. ] 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per ]. I am surprised that this article has lasted so long, actually. < |
*'''Delete''' per ]. I am surprised that this article has lasted so long, actually. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:x-large;">]</span> 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Overturn deletion and keep article.''' 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 Misplaced Pages, I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding, whether we like it or not, his Misplaced Pages 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 ] as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--]] 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Overturn deletion and keep article.''' 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 Misplaced Pages, I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding, whether we like it or not, his Misplaced Pages 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 ] as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--]] 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn''' It would be easier to delete and forget about it, I admit that, but I don't do things because they are easy. -- ] <small>] ]</small> 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Seems to be notable enough. <sub>→]]</sub> 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per ]. ] ] 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. If not, however, since this article was deleted in order to get Brandt to stop "troubling" Misplaced Pages 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. ] 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 00:13, 1 March 2023
- 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 was Still on DRV - no consensus to overturn and relist. -Doc 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
DRV in case you desire to be heard: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Brandt
Seriously now. Not notable personality, WP:IAR, WP:BLP, WP:SENSE. Is this really worth all the trouble? seriously? No. The current DRV is turning into a farce the way it's going, so let's settle this "correctly", then. Delete. – Chacor 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Borderline notability at best, combined with massiveWP:SELF problems and the fact that the subject doesn't want it make deleting the better choice here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn 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. --Dookama 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is an AFD, not DRV. – Chacor 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:BLP, there are serious ego issues going on here in regards to everything. I used to love this site, but I'm slightly revolted. Yanksox 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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. Bumm13 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no point in keeping for the sake of keeping. Also per my reasons on the last AfD. Majorly (o rly?) 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I ask that WP:SNOW not be used on this AfD (since it's NOT policy). Perhaps a redirect to Google Watch and protect said redirect?--Wizardman 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 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 WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY, 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? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) addendum delete and redirect to Google watch. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: 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 to AfD first, while it still existed, not deleted outside of process, then put on DRV, then put on AfD as a red link. Everyking 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Google cache. – Chacor 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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. The article should be restored and then the AfD should be restarted if this is going to be valid. Everyking 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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? --ElKevbo 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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 to have already been decided to delete this article. --ElKevbo 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's been a request at ANI to restore the last revision. – Chacor 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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? --ElKevbo 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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. The article should be restored and then the AfD should be restarted if this is going to be valid. Everyking 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Google cache. – Chacor 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (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 WP:BLP. Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't seem that notable on his own merits, when viewed without the "ARRRGH WIKIPEDIA!" goggles in place. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion, Delete, Keep deleted. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. 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. Bastiq▼e 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Even with nearly 100% delete !votes by now, can we please not close this early? It's just not worth the trouble. Thank you. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly seconded. There's no rush, so do this right. Trebor 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For all the right reasons.--MONGO 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. 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.Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm confused... this article is a redirect to Google Watch. What are you all talking about? Walton monarchist89 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn 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. Bumm13 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP. I am surprised that this article has lasted so long, actually. (jarbarf) 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion and keep article. 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 Misplaced Pages, I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding, whether we like it or not, his Misplaced Pages 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 ochlocracy as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--Eloquence* 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn It would be easier to delete and forget about it, I admit that, but I don't do things because they are easy. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be notable enough. →AzaToth 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP. ElinorD (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If not, however, since this article was deleted in order to get Brandt to stop "troubling" Misplaced Pages 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. Bryan Derksen 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.