| Revision as of 19:36, 2 March 2007 editR. S. Shaw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,654 edits my 1st strong keep← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:38, 20 December 2007 edit undoGracenotes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,359 edits subst |
| (714 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
===]=== |
|
|
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} |
|
|
:{{la|Daniel Brandt}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> |
|
|
The recent DRV of this article was closed with the comment that an AfD would be opened in 1 week's time. I'm going ahead, being ], and nominating this now. This is a procedural nomination based on the DRV outcome; I personally don't have an opinion either way at this time. All I will ask though as that everyone try and remain ], ], and that the AfD be allowed to run full course without any ], ] or other rationales for early closure.--] 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strong keep:''' The previous speedy deletion/DRV/RFaR mess was out of order as Daniel Brandt has clear notability. Below are news stories either about the subject ] or specifically citing him as a source in the piece (I checked each of these). The first section alone allows him to easily cruise past ] requirements. Based on his being notable I can't see any legitimate reason to delete at all. He's famous in his circles, and the entire world hears about him pracitically (note the international news coverage) often about privacy stuff. His private anti-wikipedian garbage is annoying from what I've read of it, but he's still notable. He is routinely cited by major news media (seen below) as authoratative source on a variety of privacy, search engine, Google, and internet privacy issues. By extension, if someone is so heavily gone-to as a voice and authority on a topic, by de facto he is notable because the media made him notable because of his own interaction with them. This seems to predate Siegenthaler, the Misplaced Pages feuds, etc., by some time. He exposed NSA/CIA spying on domestic citizens and got press for that (lots of press, world wide). More press still for his name base project. He got lots of lots of press and still does over his Google/SEO work (and still does, each month, as more media go to him). Unless Brandt completely stops talking to media forever this list will just grow each month, each year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
(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") |
|
|
|
| This page has been ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
<blockquote>I found approximately '''' directly relevant/about Brandt, and another '''' that are either indirectly about him, or specifically cite him as a source of authority on privacy, Google, security, and an expert. I think by him getting used so much as a source he's notable in and of himself. Add in over 77 pages of Google hits (I gave up on counting sources at the '''50''' mark) Sources: |
|
|
|
|
|
(moved source list to , at Isotope's request. Don't edit this; its part of my AfD statement!)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's sufficient. People can find more by simple . In conclusion, Brandt is a clearly public person--or else why would he 1) be cited in dozens of news stories; 2) have MAJOR news organizations talking about him for years; 3) have ] "views Brandt as a notable public figure who just doesn't want to have his bio on Misplaced Pages". ] doesn't apply for privacy reasons. It applies to Brandt no more or less than it applies for ]. Are '''''47-50+''''' sources enough to meet ] for inclusion? do we '''need''' the article? Do we need one on '''Jimmy Wales''' who is only notable for creating Misplaced Pages et al and only gets continued press for being the founder/manager of wikipedia (thats sort of one-note, but nothing wrong with that, he's a nice guy)? Do we need one for every two bit porn star/D-list celebrity, every episode of every tv show ever, every last movie ever, every pokemon character, every notable thing ever? isn't that the point? I can appreciate the guy not wanting an article for any reason... he doesn't like it, he thinks its unfair, he thinks it an invasion of his privacy by existing (the apparent reason as I read it...), or because he feels like it ''that day''. But he made himself notable, wikipedia didn't make him notable. 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 Misplaced Pages history is his own doing. he keeps at the media, he keeps at Misplaced Pages, not the other way around. we just documented it all it looks like, and he kept it up. chicken or the egg? Anyway, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the Sum total of human knowledge... |
|
|
|
|
|
So, ''strong keep''. '''1)''' For the simple fact he passes ] easily; '''2)''' IARing to delete sets a horrible precedent. Anyone then who makes themselves famous, infamous, or notable by complaining loudest will get their way and have precedent from my understanding; '''3)''' unless Brandt ''stops'' all his public activities (which is what they are) his notability each month/year will just grow, each time he does something or contributes as a recognized source. This list will just grow. '''4)''' per #3, note he passes even the most stringent ] test but will only do so with ever-increasing ease over time. Therefore '''Strong Keep'''. - ] 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just as a technical note, would you mind refactoring that huge source list to the Afd talkpage and linking it in your opinion... I imagine this debate will be huge as is.--] 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure thing, gimme a sec... - ] 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks!--] 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong, strong keep'''. The subject meets ] as a subject of multiple non-trivial works independent of Brandt. Meets ], too, if that's your flavor. The article meets our standards for ], and is not a ] issue. There is no reason whatsoever to delete this article - just because we (being Misplaced Pages) don't like him and he doesn't like us ]. --] <small>]</small> 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong keep''' as per Jeff, ] 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Stubify, protect and move content around''' Looking at the most recent turn of the "biography," there are a number of major sections. |
|
|
:*The first regards Brandt's time as a vietnam protestor. He was not a notable vietnam protestor. The sources regarding his protests range from "weak (student newspaper)" to "his name is used.(NYTimes)." Nothing is added to our article by including this, and we have regularly had "unverifiable" (aka "totally false made up shit") inserted into this section. |
|
|
:* The second part of his work is "Networking with other activists." This, again, has sources ranging from "absolute crap" (NameBase NewsLine, picked up by another source) and "Unreliable blog" (Counterpunch). |
|
|
:* The section on "Deep Indexing" should be moved to an article about ] or ], or deleted as totally irrelevent. |
|
|
:* The "Split within the PIR" section shoud be moved to the article on ] |
|
|
:*Online Activism is already covered by the article on ]. |
|
|
:* Criticism of Misplaced Pages is a section that is better put in our article about ] or ]. |
|
|
:*Seigenthaler Misplaced Pages biography controversy is already covered in our article about the ]. The article should remain as a sub, much like the one . ] - ] 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strong keep''' No-brainer per Denny. There's really little I can say to add to it besides to mention that Brandt is already convinced we are evil so it doesn't matter at all what we do - we are and always will be a target of his. Which isn't *that* bad a thing, as long as he remains honest, because it means he'll find stuff like the plagiarism and the Essjay thing which, however painful it turns out and however much better it could've been handled inside the community, sooner or later needed to be fixed. --] ] 18:58 ] ] (GMT) 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strong Keep''' per just the first half of Denny's ]. Wow. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strong Keep''' but take extreme care to make sure it meets WP policy (really we should with all BLP's and all articles, but whatever). Notable and sourced, I don't think there's any question it's a keep, and most deletion arguments seem to ignore policy and be based on trying to make a "problem" go away. The article should stay, but it should be limited to information that is encyclopedic and relevant to the reasons he is notable. --] 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Stubbify / make a dab page''', as suggested by ] in this version: . That way the article links to everything he is notable for and there are no longer any BLP objections. --] 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep''', huge list of available sources shows that he meets ]. If the rest of the media is comfortable writing about him, there's no reason Misplaced Pages shouldn't. (Hey, as of this writing, lots of keeps and no deletes! Please resist temptation to apply ]) - ] 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strong keep''' Mainstream media coverage + reliable sources = keep if any reasonable people want it. Reasonable people want this article. Keep the article. The lines of reasoning that we should dump this article because the subject doesn't want it, or because the subject makes trouble for WP, are patently ridiculous. ] 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Keep''' It would be easy to say "13th nomination" - 'nuff said but the is much more to be said. The subject is not borderline notable, he is very very notable. He was notable in August '05 and he is ''much'' more notable now. The article is high quality and well sourced. Privacy is a red herring since all the information is public domain. Remember: Brandt's complaint about the article is not that it is biased to libelous - he has two problems with it (a) "Google loves Misplaced Pages" so it comes up first when you search for his name, and (b) he is concerned about defamatory information being added. ''Even Brandt has no complains about the article itself.'' ] 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep''' badlydrawnjeff summarizes my reasoning above. --] (]) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Keep''' per Isotope23, Badlydrawnjeff, Nilo, Gwern and Denny. ] 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Isotope started this as a procedural matter, but as he says above, he hasn't taken a stand either way - probably doesn't make sense to use him as a "per". --] 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Delete''' for all the reasons already stated. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Strong keep''', reasons as per badlydrawnjeff above. This AfD nomination is particularly poor since the nominator doesn't care "either way" and offered no reasons why the article should be deleted. That this article is up for AfD is absurd, and shows a major way Misplaced Pages fails -- ''that'' should be what is worked on. -] 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|