Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:52, 14 June 2007

Daniel Brandt

Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ok, this is what everyone has been dreading- the DRV of the latest Daniel Brandt AfD. I'm really sorry to have to do this. If this had closed as almost any form of keep or delete I wouldn't be doing this, but the current close just doesn't work. The AfD was closed by A Man In Black who I give a lot of credit for being willing to close such a difficult AfD. That said, his close has no basis in policy, common sense, AfD consensus, ethics or what is good for Misplaced Pages. The AfD was closed as "complex merge" which it is clear from reading the AfD has no consensus behind it whatsoever (and two prior attempts at similar merges met with clear consensus against them. One is so fresh that it is still on the talk page at Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Proposal ) The vast majority of editors wanted it either kept or deleted. A few called for merging and there views were at best ignored. AMIB's logic behind the close which focused on three points was also faulty in at least two regards. First, AMIB asserts that "This article causes Brandt distress, largely because of previous and potential coverage of minor things he'd rather not have discussed in public but which have been mentioned in minor self-published publications Brandt has mostly tried to bury" - to characterize Brandt's distress at soley those issues is inaccurate in the extreme. Brandt has made it clear that he is not happy with any article about him and that indeed he is unhappy with almost any mention of him. Thus, this complex merge does not even solve Brandt's "distress". Furthermore, the problematic material that AMIB refers to is not in the article and can be easily kept out (the only such material I'm aware fails WP:RS anyways). AMIB's claim that "this article cannot hope to be complete, due to incomplete coverage in the sources" hinges on an extreme definition of what constitutes completeness. For no other biography would we consider it fatally incomplete if we had trouble tracking down minor details like the year of the author's birth. All in all, this close does not reflect any consensus, will not satisfy Brandt and should be overturned. JoshuaZ 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse HOLD ON A MINUTE. How about we come to a compromise on the close, instead of ramming articles through PROCESS? Instead of "overturning" this decision, let's all go to the AFD talk page and work something out like civilized people. Sean William @ 01:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OH NOES NOT PROCESS. Get a grip. Don't want DRV? Get it right the first time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a problem with people immediately running articles through DRV without 1) Talking to the closing administrator and 2) simply because they don't like the decision. This did not turn out the way that I wanted it to, but I respect the judgment of the closing administrator and endorse this close. Sean William @ 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I have problems with people automatically jumping on the "OMG PROCESS" bandwagon while endorsing nonsensical closures. I don't know why I'm replying anyway, since the closure proved that none of our opinions mattered, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Additionally, what's this if not a discussion? David Mestel 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• User:A Man In Black/Brandt has my notes on the close. Regarding "the vast majority of editors wanted it either kept or deleted"; rather than counting the bolded bits of text, I looked at the reasoning advanced by each editor. A simplistic "Okay, five days are up so it's time to close this again with no result" close ill serves this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AMIB's decision His is the only way that I can see all parties being happy in some form or another. Kwsn 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorsing this close is a matter of formality, for there was nothing wrong with it. There's absolutely nothing in our policy that says the closer must choose between a multitude incompatible suggestions, and good AfD closes have tended to seek a consensual middle ground in much the same way as this one. The problematic article disappears and the information stays. There is no downside. A Man In Black is to be congratulated on producing something that we can all live with. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While very few people argued specifically for a merge, this seems to be a reasonable compromise. It won't completely pacify Brandt, but it should alleviate his concerns somewhat, and, in doing so, satisfies the objections the people who suggested deletion had. It keeps much of the content, though, as a concession to the people who wanted it to be kept. It's a difficult AfD, and AMIB's solution is probably the best we can get. --Rory096 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse decision - I believe AMIB's closure of the AFD is an intelligent synthesis of the people's opinions — he accounted for arguments and not bolded votes. That's a good admin right there. (messedrocker • talk) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thoughts? Dumbest closure imaginable, and I was prepared for some dumb ones. But this isn't a DRV situation, somewhat sadly - he wants to merge, so it's an editorial deal. There's obviously no consensus for a merge, so it won't happen, and we move on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Scratch that, he protected the redirect. Completely absurd, overturn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't a vote, Jeff. For our benefit, would you care to explain why "There's obviously no consensus for a merge"? --bainer (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you explain where there is consensus for a merge? Oh, wait, I know, you have to defend the bad closures for the future. Forget it, I'm done commenting here. We're not an encyclopedia anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I commented below. In my view the close was a good balance between the two main arguments, "ZOMG we must keep this information!", and "ZOMG we can't have this biography!". I would just like to know the reasons why you think there is no consensus. --bainer (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:DRV is as good a place to discuss this as any, as I've used my admin tools to make this close happen, protecting Daniel Brandt as a redirect.

  By the way, the dumbest closure possible is "The result was BLEEP BLOP BLOOB ZORP." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • • No, that would be marginally brighter than this. At least that closure would reflect consensus better than this bullshit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, I swear, I knew this was coming no matter how it was closed. After 14 AFDs, I would think that the time for "process for the sake of process" has long past. I think it was a well-reasoned close and is a good compromise, and is probably as close to not having an article on Brandt (and in turn, pacifying him as Rory096 states) as we will possibly get. --Coredesat 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't process for the sake of process. This doesn't reflect consensus and as I observe above, we've had two nearly identical proposals on the Daniel Brandt talk page before. Both were rejected. I think anyone can see that this isn't a good solution given that Daniel Brandt now redirects to one of his various enterprises and doesn't given any hint that he had any involvement with the others. JoshuaZ 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If all else fails, that's what disambiguation pages are for, and the close statement does include a sentence about discussing what to do with the actual Daniel Brandt article space. --Coredesat 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This was a thoughtful balancing of the various positions expressed, going to the core of the arguments made to consider whether there was a compatible position incorporating the different objectives. --bainer (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Possibly endorse merge, but not protection of redirect I believe that merging actually may turn out to be the best decision, but it is an editorial one. If AMIB wishes to make such an editorial decision, he should of course do so, and I am glad to see that someone's trying to be inventive here. However, others are free to disagree with that decision-but with protection, not to reverse it. Seraphimblade 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete (first choice) or relist (second choice) or appoint an agreed upon committee to make a decision one way or the other (third choice) - wholly inappropriate decision on many levels. First off, there was no consensus for such a decision. When you have a Really Great Idea (tm) on how to do something, the way to see it happen is to propose it and come up with a consensus for it. Why even have AFD if we're just going to impose a predetermined result? Next, there are procedural problems with this close. Nothing good can come from keeping the history around. The article has been often vandalized. It will continue to be a source of angst and division as long as it remains in any form. It would be much better to copy/paste the sources somewhere and create Namebase or anything else from scratch, if there is community consensus that such an article should even exist. --BigDT 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Don't ask the Arbitration Committee to make a content decision. They won't. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Ok ... I don't really care who ... just someone needs to make a decision (switched to "agreed upon committee")--BigDT 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  That's what we're doing now: making a decision. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• People need to actually read User:A Man In Black/Brandt ... the argument that there is notable information about the events in Brandt's life has been addressed by keeping the information, and the argument that there is not enough information to write a good bio of someone who is only marginally notable as a person at best, has been addressed by not having the article endorse brilliant closure and slap Jeff with a trout for his out of line remarks here. DISendorse the very existance of a DRV on this brought before the ink even dried. And full marks to AMiB for taking on a very challenging close. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of line? Only thing I see out of line is numerous endorsements of further middle fingers to the opinions of the community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Jeff come on here, no offense, but you can't win them all. Kwsn 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Whining about the closure to everyone endorsing it (as well as about them) doesn't help your case to get it overturned, if that's what you're trying to do. It only strengthens the case against you at RFAR. --Coredesat 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Fuck the RfAr. I'll take the fall if it means calling out people who could give a shit about actual consensus. Shame on you, again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per A Man In Black's subpage above. A lot of effort has gone into trying to resolve this, rather than simply letting this rather minor article in the scheme of things continue to be a problem to the community's harmony. Orderinchaos 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. By no possible construction of the 14th AfD or the AfD discussion is a hack-down-&-redirect-&-protect anywhere near what even a plurality of editors wanted. There's such a thing as administrator discretion in closing an AfD, true, but using the occasion of closing an AfD as a pretext for forcing through (using admin tools to enforce it, I note) a pet solution is entirely outside policy and discretion. --Gwern (contribs) 02:12 14 June 2007 (GMT)

  I didn't use my admin tools for anything more than would typically be done in a delete close; to wit, the forced removal of a single page. I felt admin tools were appropriate due to the WP:BLP issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  Gwern, what makes you think this is his pet project rather than his attempt at taking all the arguments and trying to make a compromise? (messedrocker • talk) 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Looking over AMIB's analysis of the discussion and his reasoning, I feel he did an excellent job of balancing (as best as anyone could) the weak consensus in the article with the larger consensus behind the principles of the project. I wish this much thought went in to every closure, especially of repeat noms such as this. --InkSplotch 02:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the above - AMIB's reasoning is spectacular. It takes into account the concerns of all parties to the deletion debate skillfully, in my eyes. Cowman109 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. AMIB is to be highly commended for what he did. There may not have been people screaming left and right for what he did, but he did the right thing. ^demon 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - This wasn't anything remotely like consensus to delete or merge this article and it is contradictory to a majority of our (albeit contradictory) policies, except of course WP:IGNORE which is becoming the norm. --Oakshade 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:IAR is policy, and always has been. Sean William @ 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Misplaced Pages still functions based on consensus. IAR is not "do whatever I feel like" and see my remarks above as to why this is not a good solution in any event. JoshuaZ 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I am going to repeat (with some modifications) what I have said on the talk page of the AfD: I was one of those suggesting a series of merges, and if some people actually understood how merges work, then they might see how that is an elegant solution. The basic idea is that Brandt needs to be mentioned in some contexts in Misplaced Pages articles, the material and sources exist in this article, so splitting the content up among different pages preserves the information, while reducing the focus on Brandt that an article with his name generates. ie. Brandt goes from having his own article to being a footnote in several articles. Essentially, having his own article was a distortion of due weight. Splitting the material up focuses the attention back on the various companies and activities, not on the private aspects of the person. Carcharoth 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I was going to steer clear of this train wreck of a DRV but I decided to post. People, this man is not really notable. Some of the things he has done are. We should have articles on those things. Not the man. -N 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• No comment on the close, but the creation of CIA HTTP cookies controversy was probably not the greatest idea. That's gonna get killed on afd. Might as well kill it now and save the grief. --- RockMFR 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I noticed the following comment at the AfD: "Article subject fully merits a bio for his life's work." - well, maybe, maybe not, but the key point here is that it should not be Misplaced Pages who decides whether he gets a biographical article. We should look around and ask ourselves if anyone else has bothered to write a biography about him. If not, then clearly we shouldn't. End of story. Carcharoth 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 'comment that's an idea that has no basis in policy nor is it at all relevant to how this DRV was closed. JoshuaZ 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • How so? If you take separate news reports and interviews and combine the information to create a biographical article that no-one else has written before, that is the textbook definition of original research. Last time I checked, 'no original research' was one of the central Misplaced Pages policies. In general, asking whether anyone else has taken a biographical approach to writing about a subject is a good test of notability. Have a read of biography and obituary for more on this. Also, compare Who's Who (UK) and Dictionary of National Biography, for different, and more responsible ways of approaching biographical writing. Carcharoth 03:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest you reread the no original research policy for what constitutes original research and what does not. It is as Jayjg says Misplaced Pages's most poorly understood policy. What you re describing is not original research (if it were, we would be unable to use two sources about George W. Bush in the same article). JoshuaZ 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I am familiar with the no original research policy, and that policy doesn't cover all examples of original research. The 'original synthesis' clause is the one that comes closest to applying here. In essence people are pulling together disparate facts and saying "look, this is a biography of Brandt". If someone else says: "ooh, I've never seen a biography of Brandt before", then that means an original work has been created. The concept of writing a biography of Brandt has been created, and it is that concept that is 'original'. Sometimes you have to think about and interpret polices, and not mechanically look for absence of evidence in a policy. Carcharoth 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This really has no basis in policy nor is it a good idea. Under this logic we could not for example have articles about Kent Hovind(no general biography of him, but highly notable). In any event, this tangent has little to do with the serious points: there was no consensus for this setup and it manages to combine some of the worst aspects of a keep and a delete. JoshuaZ 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse AMIB should be thanked for doing the task no one would have ever done. User:Zscout370 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• So you are endorsing based on the fact that the debate was closed? --JJay 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure in terms of admin actions and redirecting and locking Daniel Brant though I think there are better solutions as to what to do with article material but this isnt the place to discuss them, SqueakBox 02:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This is a real live human being we're discussing endlessly here. It's bad for him and bad for us, and it has to end. Let's support A Man in Black's decision and be done with it. SlimVirgin 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus (hence keep) There was plainly no consensus for deletion here, and the AfD should have been closed accordingly. The decision to merge, except where those partaking of an AfD have had occasion to evaluate and support or oppose it, is an editorial one that is not taken at AfD. It may well be that the community qua encyclopedia editors will determine that the proposed complex merge is entirely appropriate and consistent with those policies and practices for which a consensus exists, but that is a decision for the community to make (viz., at Talk:Daniel Brandt or some similar page). The closure of an AfD, OTOH, is purely ministerial; a closing admin acts only to determine for what course of action a consensus lies and then to effect that course of action. Even as the outcome here may be one the community will ultimately embrace, it is emphatically not one that can be reasonably understood to follow from the AfD (or, even if reasonable and not plainly a substitution by the closing admin of his judgment—considered though it may have been —for that of those participating at the AfD, surely not the preferable disposition; we evaluate closures at DRV, after all, de novo) and so it ought surely to be overturned. Joe 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Was there any way the Delete crowd was going to be satisfied with anything else but Delete? Ever? Was there any way the Keep crowd was going to be satisfied with anything else but Keep? Ever? Was there any way that conflicting policies on this level would be resolved at this time in a way that any significant majority would be happy with? Then the answer is compromise. This is a compromise. It's the closest anyone will see to consensus on the subject. So let it rest. LaughingVulcan 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, I don't much care about the decision to close per se. It wasn't deleted, so there's no need to overturn. That said, I don't feel that the merge idea should be implemented without at least a discussion of how to do that. Especially since some people on the talk page of the current AFD apparently believed that others were not aware that a merge was an option. (I can't speak for anyone else, but I was, and I don't concur with it, but I suppose it could have happened). Therefore, I suggest the current redirect at Daniel Brandt be removed, and a proposed merge tag link to a discussion on it so that consensus (or not) can be determined for that. It's possible folks might not even agree with the redirect to Namebase as it's not the only thing he's done. Yet that article provides NO indication of anything else he's done. Is that appropriate? I don't concur. It effectively obscures the information, which is not a good thing. Mister.Manticore 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn. I'm going to say a lot here, and I apologize in advance, but I think it's important, since this is something that seems to be part of a larger discussion. First, it is plain, I think, that that the AFD contained no consensus for a merger; so we are, in effect, being asked to judge AMIB's invocation of WP:IAR and the spirit behind WP:BLP. Concerning WP:BLP deletions, redirects, and mergers, one of the key points is that they are normally used for people who are noteworthy and only reported on in the context of a single event. Brandt is notable for a wide range of activism, and several noteworthy events and causes he has undertook related to that activism. This is significant; there is a reason why BLP focuses on people notable for a single event, and offers much less straightforward support for deleting articles on people notable for a range of things. When someone is notable for a single event, it may make sense to merge information about them into an article on that one event; but when someone is notable for a wide range of things (even relatively marginal things), it becomes much more destructive to divide that information up... mergers are, in short, a considerably less desirable option for an article like Brandt's. Meanwhile, someone for whom verifiable information is available on only for one event is likely to be shown in two-dimensional light; the existence of verifiable reporting on a Brandt in numerous different contexts, on the other hand, serves to diffuse almost entirely that serious concern. Finally, AMIB's closure fails on one crucial step, which I think would be enough to overturn even absent any other justification. In his justification, he replies to User:John254, responding to what he acknowledges to be the central argument for keeping the article. AMIB's response here is vital, since it amounts to his justification for near-totally ignoring what was an extremely strong opinion in the AFD. AMIB says: This is the crux of the old keep arguments: he's widely covered in passing in many sources, and fairly influential (as one can see from the sources). It's the heart of our interest in covering this person, although John254 doesn't address whether it outweighs the possibility of harm to the subject. That last line is, in essence, what AMIB is hinging his entire decision on. The problem is that John254 did indeed address this issue, just as BLP addresses this issue: It is not comprised primarily of unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, appears to be written from a neutral point of view, and does not exist primarily to provide publicity which is harmful to a living person, where the publicity was generated through no fault of the article's subject -- Daniel Brandt has intentionally become a public figure. Fundamentally, that last part, if you accept it, eliminates any reason to argue for a BLP deletion or hard-redirect on this article. Brandt's article is not something assembled from a single random incident in which he happened to be involved, an unfortunate birth defect or photo that accidently made its way onto the internet, or a single criminal case he was unfortunate enough to be involved with; it stems from lifelong advocacy, a devoted and longstanding career in the public eye... Brandt is, through his own deliberate efforts to that end, a significant public figure. To invoke BLP on such a subject and to imply that it is harmful simply to use his name for an article is flatly absurd. --Aquillion 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as a reasonable balance of the two perspectives. Brandt is only notable for what he has done, not who he is; therefore trying to have a biography on him is difficult, and he objects. Per the current understanding of BLP, that means we remove the biography and keep the well-sourced information elsewhere. -- nae'blis 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close shows why admins are not meant to play King Solomon. They are not players in the match. They are referees meant to tally the score and maybe hand out some red cards or fouls (i.e. limited use of discretion). Merge played little or no role in the debate. An admin oversteps his mandate by enforcing a solution that is anti-consensual. The end result is we now have a multitude of articles - all related to a living person - that will have to be watched to a greater extent than the previous bio article. --JJay 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • By that logic, I'm surprised there aren't hundreds of DRVs appearing right now. Admins aren't just rubber stamps, otherwise we would not need a process to select them. --Coredesat 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few DRVs. Many decisions are contested and overturned. Admins make mistakes every day. They also get desysopped. Get used to it. --JJay 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) --JJay 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Admins aren't desysopped for mistakes, they're desysopped for screwing up major league bigtime. (messedrocker • talk) 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That is probably true. It also has little to do with this DRV. --JJay 03:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Did you even read AMiB's notes? There was no decision that could possibly satisfy all parties. Admins do make mistakes, but this wasn't one, and this isn't the sort of thing admins get desysopped for. Nothing was deleted, so I don't see this as an admin overstepping his bounds. --Coredesat 03:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Their role in closing an AFD is not "to satisfy all parties". Their role is to reflect the consensus shown during the debate. --JJay 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Jay, please calm down. Core and Messed, I think JJay wasn't suggesting that AMIB should be deysyssoped for this (which would be frankly ridiculous and I'd be the first person to shout on the roof tops how dumb an idea that would be). He was merely accenting the failibility of admins. Now can we all get back on topic? JoshuaZ 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What gives you the impression I'm not calm? That my original comment provoked somewhat emotional knee-jerk reactions is no fault of mine. --JJay 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (ec) No, admins are, or should be, practically rubber stamps. Adminship is purely ministerial; an admin acts to determine for what course of action a consensus lies (generally in the context of a discussion but in the case, for instance, of a block, in the context of established policy and extant practice) and then to effect such course of action. The process we use to select admins is, or ought to be, not exactingly discriminating, and the only reason for which we do not confer the tools on an editor is that we think him to be likely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, most prominently by acting, intentionally or not, contrary to consensus. To suggest that an admin should do other than act janitorially at the direction of the community is fundamentally to misstate the collaborative nature of the project. Joe 03:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. --JJay 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - good solution. We don't lose any significant information, while we shift the spotlight from the marginally notable individual. Crum375 03:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Read between the lines. Of course there was no explicit consensus to merge, but yet it is a consensus based on evaluating the opinions, throwing it together in a bowl, and then coming up with a compromise. As it has been stated, admins are not rubber-stamps; they are or should be selected because of their ability to think like a wise, mediating Wikipedian. (messedrocker • talk) 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I have an idea for what to do with the actual Daniel Brandt article space. Basically we could not have a redirect and make a very brief permastub which is nothing more than a glorified disambiguation page; something like "Daniel Brandt is an activist who has been involved in: (bulleted list)". Really a cross between a disambiguation page and a stub. (messedrocker • talk) 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation could be done via the Brandt page. Carcharoth 09:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The nominator of this review sums up my thoughts pretty well. Although I voted to keep this article, and defended my statements several times, I would have much preferred a delete. I appreciate the administrator's efforts to "pacify" all parties, but I don't see how this could possibly accomplish that noble goal. I think even he said Brandt would not be entirely happy, and I counted two suggestions for merging the data in the article with at least as many vehemently opposing such an action. What we have, therefore, is a closing action that is not based on policy, not based on precedent (I haven't read of any "complex merges" before) and certainly not based on editor consensus. Consensus, and this is probably the most important statement in my comments here, is not the same as Synthesis. What are we left with as a basis for our actions on this website? Has IAR suddenly become the most important page on Misplaced Pages? AMiB's close is a novel idea, but as with AfD #14 itself, this is the wrong article for test-driving new ideas. ◄Zahakiel► 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, it's quite simply time to forge a solution and put it to bed, which AMIB had the balls to do. --Spike Wilbury 04:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - AMIB extracted logic from the collective sum of votes, not just numbers and loudness. Gracenotes § 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. An elegant solution to a horribly complex problem. The notes made the reasoning easy to follow. Let's move on. Flyguy649_contribs 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Early close that does not reflect consensus. Simple as that. Jokestress 05:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This doesn't make any sense compared to how we've handled other biographies. If nothing else, redirecting the article to just a single one of the four articles where the material is winding up is improper; there should be links to all the major stuff that Brandt is involved in. And other than a disambiguation page, what way is there to do that without having at least a stub of a bio to describe them? Bryan Derksen 05:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Good decision, cutting the gordian knot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just a comment - While I agree with a lot of AMIB's reasoning, I am uncomfortable with merging the content to multiple articles and concluding that Brandt is not notable enough for a bio. If the information about him and NameBase, Google, Misplaced Pages, etc. is notable then there is value added by discussing it in the same article rather than treating them as separate phenomenon. A good litmus test is that if a bio can safely be merged into 1 other article, the subject is not notable. Otherwise, the person is important inasmuch as they weave those topics together. Savidan 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: mostly per Aquillion, the fact that it was closed after four days instead of five, the fact that AMIB's notes completely miss the point of the keep advocates, which is that he's clearly notable because of his own efforts to become a public figure, and the article's well-sourced. Oh, and the fact that the AfD could not be any stretch of the imagination be read to show a consensus for delete, which is what this would effectively be. I think Proto's comment here is material to this case. David Mestel 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I think we need to get away from always using the mergin-into-events, "he's only notable for what he's done" approach, since it's true for practically everyone - perhaps Albert Einstein should be merged into Discovery of General and Special Relativity? David Mestel 06:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Satisfactory decision, well justified by closing admin.--Oakhouse 07:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse this. AMiB has read and understood the arguments, and correctly (IMO) judged the weight of them. This is another "biography" teased from minor facts in articles which are fundamentally about something else. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Righteous close and good decision. --Tbeatty 08:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse perhaps the most thoughtful close ever completed on wikipedia. I'd have prefered downright deletion - but we need a solution that isn't winner-takes-all. This has a hope of actually sticking. The alternatives are quite unpalatable. --Doc 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)