Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 17 June 2007

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

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)

Section 1

• 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)
        • It's a redlink. Uncle G 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • For the audience, David mis-linked. He was referring to this. Carcharoth 17:02, 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)
      • Entirely wrong. Any editor who thinks that "the result was X" is a better closure than a closure that explains the reasoning in detail and how the various arguments were weighed, should not be permitted to close AFD discussions. Uncle G 16:44, 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)
      • Someone already made a decision. A Man In Black did. You are criticizing the the decision that was made on the basis that "someone needs to make a decision". Uncle G 15:53, 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)
    • And the protection of the redirect is 'typically' done? --Gwern (contribs) 12:21 14 June 2007 (GMT)
      • 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)
        • Messed, I feel that because in all the time I've known/watched AMIB, he's been a mergist and deletionist sort of fellow. So when I see him delve into that AfD and surrounding conversations and somehow come out with that merge (which is, as I and other have previously emphasized, unreflected in either policy or what consensus there was), is it really so surprising that I would suspect it to be more reflective of his own personal beliefs than the merits of the situation? --Gwern (contribs) 12:25 14 June 2007 (GMT)
          • Actually, this is the exact opposite of the sort of work I typically do. I like boiling down and consolidating redundant and related things, not splitting them into disparate chunks. In this case, the split was the best to resolve the issues at hand, but a four-way article split is not my usual style. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 15 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)
        • See my comment further below. Carcharoth 10:03, 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)
  • "There was plainly no consensus for deletion here" — And the article wasn't deleted, as the deletion log will attest. So the AFD was closed in accordance with that, by your very own argument. Your very own argument is also that the AFD discussion should have solely determined whether to hit the delete button or not. Given that A Man In Black didn't hit the delete button, your "overturn" opinion implies that you want the other outcome, namely that xe should have hit the delete button. Your rationale is self-contradictory. Uncle G 16:23, 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)
• Endorse delete per its basis in policy, common sense, AfD consensus, ethics and what is good for Misplaced Pages. Jkelly 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - it may not be based in Misplaced Pages policy but I have serious problems with the notion of deleting articles about public figures (who have through their deliberate actions made themselves public figures) because the subjects of the articles might get their feelings hurt because of the existence of the article. Boo hoo, suck it up, you're notable, deal with it. The "compromise" is ridiculous and was invented out of the whole cloth by the closing admin (no disrespect intended to him, the AFD was ugly). Wikpedia must not be held hostage to people who have articles but don't want to. Otto4711 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Overturn - I strongly believe that this needs to be rereviewed. The problem is that Brandt is a well known personality, he is frequently in the media and he runs a number of notable sites: Misplaced Pages-watch, Google Watch and NameBase. It's a bit silly to have so many organisations about one man yet have no article about the man himself.

I realise that people have valid concerns about information being added that is against WP:BLP, however the merge idea just isn't well thought out. Exactly how do we do the merge? Do we do it to NameBase, or do we do it Google Watch? What information do we merge? The only way you could merge would be to add a "Founder" section - and then you would have the exact same problem as before: people adding the wrong stuff and causing the exact same issues.

The best way of dealing with BLP issues is in the same manner that we dealt with them in George W. Bush and John Seigenthaler, Sr.. Information should be removed onsite that shouldn't be there (in fact, it should be hidden), or articles should be semi-protected. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

• 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)
  • Deletion is an administrator hitting a delete button to remove an article and its entire edit history, no more and no less. Redirection is not deletion. Uncle G 16:23, 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)
    • No. Numerous biographies of Einstein have been written. None have been written about Brandt. Carcharoth 10:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • A biography should not be a prerequisite for notability. Savidan 04:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Um. Do you see the difference between "uplift the unknown lives that have touched history out of the obscurity of old library halls and into the flashy pizazz of the internet age" and "uplift the unknown lives that have been exposed to modern media attention out of the obscurity of private lives and into the flashy pizazz of the internet age"? You can't judge, with contemporary people, whether they have "touched history". That judgement will come later. History will literally be the judge of that. I love seeing obscure people rescued from historical oblivion, but that should not apply to people from our own times when we are too close in time ourselves to judge historical perspective. Also, don't misunderstand me when I say "biography" - I don't mean a published hefty tome of a book. My minimum standard would be a self-published biograhpical statement on an official website. If that doesn't exist then further investigation would be needed to unearth biiographical details, and that is not what Misplaced Pages does. Digging through history books and newspaper archives for dead people, fine. Digging through newspaper archives and looking up census information and birth certificates for living people, absolutely not. Carcharoth 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, it's hardly digging - just listing his name, country of origin and a collated list of his projects with some information about them. David Mestel 14:59, 15 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)
• Comment - some of this may be lost above, so making the point here. Brandt may be a suitable disambiguation page, for those wanting to go that route. I think what is fundamentally at stake here is the way people set about writing biographical articles. People think: "what can I write about this person", instead of "what have others written about this person?" The former approach leads to an investigative journalism-type article, where Misplaced Pages editors (often in good faith) scrounge through internet searches and newspaper archives to extract all the available information and document it, regardless of issues of encyclopedic balance. In my opinon, the better approach is to use as a seed, or primary reference, an existing biography. This may range from a full-blown biography by a respected scholar, to an autobiography, to an obituary published in a newspaper, to a biographical statement on an official website, to an entry in Who's Who (UK), to an entry in Dictionary of National Biography. Once the foundations have been laid, then the article can be expanded from that with side-references (with care). But if the foundations haven't been laid by a reliable source, then you are aggregating disparate information to create a biography that hasn't been written before. In my opinion, that is a fundamentally flawed approach, verges on original research, unfairly boosts coverage and implies notability where none may exist. Carcharoth 10:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, since I see this as the only possible solution that won't result in continuous AfD relistings. I think AMIB's solution was bold and has a very real chance of working on the long term. As for the procedural correctness of the decision, I will not comment on that, as Misplaced Pages internal politics are really not my bailiwick. --Agamemnon2 10:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC). Opinion overturned. I thought long and hard about it, and came to the conclusion that we can't start ignoring process simply because it's convenient for us. Not for Brandt, not for anything. --Agamemnon2 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have an alternative solution that won't result in continuous relistings. When I raised the multiple listings in the AfD discussion, I was told by a deletion supporter that each and every one of the first 13 listings had some sort of flaw, some reason why it shouldn't "count". OK, assuming that to be true, AfD #14 gave the subject a thorough airing. There was no consensus. Therefore, we keep the article. Some people who supported deletion argued that multiple debates on the subject were deflecting energy that could be used to improve the encyclopedia in other ways, so here's my alternative solution: Now that it's been thoroughly discussed, the people who support deletion accept that there's no consensus for their view and they stop listing it. Problem solved. JamesMLane t c 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - There was quite simply no consensus to delete and certainly no consensus to merge. If there's one rule that shouldn't be ignored, it's WP:CON. When an AfD has no consensus, it must default to keep, not merge, redirect, delete, or some other solution. -- Cielomobile 10:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No consensus to delete means an administrator not hitting a delete button. It does not preclude merger, redirection, or other editorial actions. Thinking that it does is a misconception. Both merger and redirection are forms of keep. Please read the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that merge is the same as keep for AfD purposes. What happens then is that the exact details of the merge is usually left for editors to deal with. Though in this case the editors of the Brandt article have discussed this before, so I can understand the problems with that. Carcharoth 10:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really, no. The fundamental question is, "does the article continue to exist?", and the answer, in the case of a merge result, is no. David Mestel 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you making the distinction between a merge and a split? In the case of a split, the unity of the information suffers, but the information survives. In the case of a merge (usually for stubs), sometimes the text of the previous article survives wholesale as a section or paragraph in the destination article. Given that redirects can point directly at sections (and even at paragraphs, using the span-id tag), links to the 'article' still work. An example would be Finnish general strike of 1905. In this case, with a split, I'd have to agree with you that the 'article' has not survived. But consider the case of a borderline notable person who is mentioned in passing in several articles on Misplaced Pages (hopefully I can find a real example). We don't have an article on that person, or even a redirect, but when you perform a search (either on Misplaced Pages or Google) for that person, people still see the three or four most relevant articles, but not a single article. Maybe not ideal, but is it really worth that much angst? Carcharoth 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The answer is "yes", as can be clearly seen by looking at //en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Daniel_Brandt&action=history. Uncle G 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Not to Joe Reader, it doesn't. David Mestel 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, we shouldn't kid ourselves. A verdict of "Keep" would have resulted only in a few months' (at best) respite, after which another AfD would have sprung up with all the tedious inevitability of an unloved season. Already this article has sucked up immense amounts of editorial resources that could be better spent eradicating the various backlogs that are piling up. Due process is all well and dandy, but it shouldn't be the albatross around our necks. --Agamemnon2 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So if someone is prepared to shout about something enough, we should do whatever the hell they want? David Mestel 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Aquillion put it best. Further comments possibly forthcoming. Abeg92contribs 11:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and give closer a medal for extreme cleverness and good judgment. Sam Blacketer 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, AMiB's decision was excellent and his reasoning behind it is sound. Riana ⁂ 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is a great, well-thought-out compromise that takes all the concerns in the debate into consideration. I too applaud AMiB's decision (and BOLDness). Krimpet (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- Bold? I consider it reckless. Unreal. •Jim62sch• 12:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep as it was. This drive to protect people's feelings in the name of BLP is getting to be a bit alarming. This is a notable, public subject who is quite deserving of biographical attention. I can't wait til Paris Hilton has a hissy fit about coverage of her jail time and that section, or the article itself, falls to the Deletionists. Tarc 13:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a different case. Paris Hilton has an official website, indicating that she is a public figure. Where is the website for Brandt that is all about him, rather than a collection of his opinions and ideas? Carcharoth 14:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 3

• Endorse closure. Those asking for an overturn on the basis that this somehow did not get the fair discussion it needed are, at this point, just hoping to have another chance to change the outcome. The community has had its input, and the decision by AMIB was bound to not satisfy everyone, but it seems to pay attention to as many comments as possible, and it chose a very reasonable solution. But more importantly, more discussion will not lead to more clarity or a better solution, nor will it lead to some magical result where everyone is happy with the outcome. So, I don't think it's worth doing it again. Mangojuice 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that. The reason I wish to have the ruling overturned is because I feel the community's input was not properly respected - the consensus of that input was definitely not respected. Personally I, and several others, are on record as saying we would prefer any true outcome that reflected, if not most, then many editors' desires here - but what we're left with is anything but a magical result. ◄Zahakiel► 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Your challenge, Jim, should you choose to accept it, is to find the "true outcome" that you believe exists, and present it. Please present an alternative outcome that you think addresses the substance of the various arguments presented by all of the editors in the discussion better than the current outcome. Without such a concrete example of a better way to have closed the discussion, arguments that the current closure should be overturned because it wasn't optimal founder on the lack of an existence proof that there was a better closure to be had.

      By the way: Any editor with experience will realize that the "the result was X" closure suggested by Badlydrawnjeff above is a far worse closure. The best closures are those where administrators explain their working. The worst are "the result was X". So your "true outcome" will need to show your reasoning at least as well as the current closure does. Uncle G 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

      • I think you are misunderstanding my role in this matter :) I am not the closing administrator, and my role as an editor is to give my opinion, which I did (I thought it should have been kept), and to graciously await the consensus of other editors' input, which I did (I would have been satisfied with a deletion). I don't know just what I would have done in AMiB's place, but since he took on the role (which I didn't) then HE has the job of evaluating the matter in totality. I don't have to be hit with a mallet to decide that I am not going to enjoy what it feels like, so I don't accept your reasoning that I have to know what the "best" solution is before I can say, "This was a bad one." In my opinion, this was a bad one. It reflects a synthesis of questionable validity of several editors' views, and we have no policy that even allows for such a thing, and from your comments to me and other editors on this page, you do not appear to be distinguishing between this and a genuine concensus. The close is a violation of process, (I am an editor with some "experience") and ANY outcome that followed the proper procedures would have been a "true" one. Satisfactory? Final? Maybe, or maybe not. But neither was this. ◄Zahakiel► 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The person misunderstanding your rôle in the matter is you. (I've written nothing on the subject of "genuine consensus" anywhere on this page, by the way. So you're misunderstanding that, too.) This is Deletion review. We are reviewing the closure of the AFD discussion. If you are going to assert that something is a bad closure, and not the "true outcome", you need to be prepared to put your edits where your arguments are and tell us what the "true outcome" is. "It's not my place to say." isn't good enough. If you cannot tell us what the better closure that "followed the proper procedures" would have actually been, then your argument that there is a better closure to be had founders almost completely.

          You also need to explain which of the procedures (which are outlined at Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators and Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Closure) were not followed — especially given that we have a decision that (per the Guide) has been explained in exemplary detail, with annotations against individual editors' arguments, and that (per the Guidelines) used judgement and that didn't delete when there was no consensus for it.

          A vague assertion that the "proper procedures" were not followed to achieve the "true outcome" means next to nothing without concrete explanations of what the true outcome is and what the proper procedures were that were not followed. Uncle G 17:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

          • I am sorry, I did not mean to make this as personal a matter as to merit such a reply. You are correct that this is a deletion review. In other words, we are reviewing the decision that was made. We are not here to suggest new ones. As for which policies were violated, perhaps we have a different understanding of how concensus works in Misplaced Pages. I am making no "vague assertions." I read the consensus page, I compared it with the closing decision, they didn't match. That's as concretely as I can express my view. If you insist that I say something I would have done differently, well... I suppose I can offer this: I would have let the AfD run until the appointed time for its closure. ◄Zahakiel► 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure even though I find the consensus grounds a little shaky, this is perhaps the best solution and the probable Condorcet winner (even taking into account that AFD is not a pure vote count). I think the result touches upon many of the facts, arguments and points presented and is a perfectly reasonable compromise. The ones who wanted the biography gone have the biography gone. The ones who wanted the information preserved have it preserved in various articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The closer found the best solution and I think this is a good compromise. Kamryn Matika 13:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. No consensus for this interpretation of the discussion. Seventy Seven Thousand 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is, however, consensus that using sockpuppets to attempt to influence the outcomes of decisions is not acceptable. Picaroon (Talk) 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Good call on blocking this sock. -- ChrisO 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I am impressed with how the admin was able to take such a large, variant set of opposing viewpoints on what to do about this article and achieve a compromise that, while making very few people happy, did so because very few people agreed. Brandt has his article removed, his work is still featured in articles, and an endless energy sapping of time and resources is removed. Good show. --Jscott 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse decision and move on. Really, what else can we do? -Pilotguy hold short 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Let me be the first to name Proto's Law. Uncle G 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Or possibly second, depending on what you're talking about... Gracenotes § 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You didn't name it. ☺ Uncle G 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, but your naming is a Protologism. Gracenotes § 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. It was a difficult decision to make but someone had to do it. When there is that much contention involved, of course people are going to be dissatisfied with the result - but I think this is a case where it is far superior to come up with a compromise solution that will cause the least amount of dissatisfaction. A lot of minor grumbling is preferable to a vocal and angry uproar from one segment or the other. Arkyan • 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn Against consensus and not a good idea. The starter of this DRV gives a good explanation of why this should be overturned. IAR does not apply when it makes Misplaced Pages worse off. Also claims that Brandt is a private person are absurd given how many interviews he has had. We now have spinoff articles being nominated for deletion which shows that this is arguably not even a compromise since it is causing information on Misplaced Pages to be lost. Gothnic 16:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Many people strongly wanted the article deleted. Many others strongly wanted it kept. Obviously, no solution would have satisfied everyone. We have a policy for that situation, which has arisen many times before: There was no consensus, and a lack of consensus defaults to "keep". I do not question AMIB's good faith, but he did not follow that policy. Furthermore, even with regard to the merger he set up as a supposed compromise, it was not suggested in the AfD as it should have been, so that the details would be subject to community discussion. On Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination), JoshuaZ commented sarcastically: "Ok, and Daniel Brandt then links to what? A DAB page with 'Daniel Brandt' may refer to any of the following people who are really the same person but we can't put them all in one article because that would create too much drama?" Even a solution like that -- with Daniel Brandt listing the various articles where the information has gone, instead of being a protected redirect to just one of them -- would be superior to this one. That's the kind of point that could have been discussed had the merger been proposed properly instead of being implemented unilaterally. JamesMLane t c 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You said "Many people strongly wanted the article deleted. Many others strongly wanted it kept. Obviously, no solution would have satisfied everyone. We have a policy for that situation, which has arisen many times before: There was no consensus, and a lack of consensus defaults to "keep".". How would that keep the people who wanted it deleted satisfied? Kwsn 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It would not make them happy but it would be closer to policy to just acknowledge the lack of consensus and as JoshuaZ commented already this will not make Brandt happy. Gothnic 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • As I said, consensus can often be extracted from logic better than it can be extracted from how much noise one side can make. And when Brandt complains about the decision, then we'll talk about the last point. Gracenotes § 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean to suggest that following policy would make all the deletion supporters happy. A handful of them might conceivably be "happy" in the sense of accepting an adverse decision that's fairly arrived at. When you're working with other people, you don't always get your way. The best you can hope for is that there will be procedures in place to handle disagreements; that the procedures were created without regard to this specific issue but are of general applicability and known in advance; and that the generally applicable procedures were followed in this particular case. That's the basis on which people can accept an unfavorable result and move on. If we agree that there's no Daniel Brandt solution that would have made everyone happy, then general acceptance of the process, if not the substantive result, is the best we can hope for. We haven't achieved that. If the effective deletion of the article stands, then the pro-deletion side will have gotten what they wanted, but they may find that freewheeling reliance on WP:IAR to get what you want does not come without a cost. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Here's the problem, if I may, Grace... you do not extract a consensus, you report a consensus. That's really the bottom line here. ◄Zahakiel► 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • For cases as complicated as this, admins have extracted a consensus. Esperanza and RFCN are examples, and while those are not articles, there are enough extra-content components of this debate to make a reasonable comparison. Gracenotes § 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • No. In those cases the admins extracted a synthesis. Because that solution was subsequently agreed upon by a large number of editors, then there was a consensus to actually do it. That's how those two concepts work. In those cases, process was followed. In this case, it wasn't. If, however, the majority of editors in this DRV say the decision should be upheld, we'll have a consensus to uphold it, and I'll be fine with that. I'll still think it was a poor decision, but at least we'll have followed this procedure properly to arrive there. I really have no hard feelings toward either Brandt or anyone else who commented on this issue; I am easily pleased (the comments that the "only reason" this DRV exists is because some of us "hate his guts" notwithstanding). ◄Zahakiel► 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • And may those comments continue to notwithstand common sense. Now, It is my opinion that this close was also a synthesis, and "against consensus" is the main reason I see here for overturning. I'm not sure if this means "I disagree with it", or if some endorses mean "I like it". Gracenotes § 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, if I am understanding you correctly, I think I can agree with everything you said. A lot of people are indeed saying, "I like it" or "I don't like it." If enough people like it, so be it, and we can close the book. It doesn't mean that this was the way it should have gone down, because we have no rules, policies, guidelines or precedent to support how it did. But again, and to be clear, if we NOW arrive at a consensus to keep it (the decision), that's ok with me. ◄Zahakiel► 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn as a total misreading of the consensus. The result probably was no consensus. This guy does not get to write his own article. That's what he's been trying to do--either have it just the way the wants it or have it deleted. But if there is any principle at Misplaced Pages, it's that subjects of articles do not get to do this. He's a little too notable to have the article withdrawn as a preference, especially since he is using this to ensure that he either gets a article of unqualified praise, or nothing at all. That's not the intent of removing at subject request. BLP is irrelevant here because there is nothing unsourced and derogatory being said.
  • Removing it will leave the precdent that all of the lower half of notability subjects of biographies also can force us to rewrite their articles according to desires, and we will become a clone of the ABI and other vanity publications. Let him say what he wants on his blog, including whatever he may want to say about us, and let us on the other hand be objective, Don't the endorsers realise that they are providing him and WR and all our other enemies with really excellent ammunition? very additional step to try to delete this shows us as susceptible to pressure. DGG 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I think AMIB's suggestion is fairly reasonable. He might have been able to get consensus on it; I would have supported it with some tweaks. We'll never know now; we would if he had closed no consensus, as was obvious, and called a poll: or indeed just discussed it at Talk:Daniel Brandt, and gone ahead if few enough people screamed, as just another editor. That's a process flaw; and DRV exists in order to reverse flawed processes. Dismissing this as mere formality is the voice of those who don't care how much ill-feeling they leave among editors as long as they get their way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and move on. I would say "this is getting silly", but that isn't strictly accurate as it was plenty silly in the first place. Brandt doesn't want an article, WP is no worse or less-complete without a Brandt article. The only reason it's an issue at all, let's face it, is because some people here hate his guts and want to retain the article to annoy him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest you WP:AGF a bit more. As the person who started this DRV I can assure you that my my problems with this result have nothing to do with a desire to annoy Brandt. I'd rather not annoy him or spite him or whatever. That doesn't alter the reasons to overturn this AfD. Accusing people of wanting to retain it because they "hate his guts" is an ad hominem attack which is unproductive. JoshuaZ 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So you're really trying to tell me that the furor and attention this article gets is wholly unrelated to Brandt's status as a Misplaced Pages "enemy"? Take a look at the last version of the article before redirection. Actually read the thing. It it wasn't for all the hatred generated by his anti-Misplaced Pages activities, it would have been just another one of the hundreds of NN bios deleted, PRODded, and speedied every day, and nobody would have made a fuss or raised an eyebrow at its passing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know about you but when I'm doing my CSD patrol I routinely remove speedy tags from articles with far fewer sources than this and remove prods similarly. While the number of people who have felt a need to voice opinions may be connected to Brandt's interaction with Misplaced Pages (at minimum it makes Wikipedians more likely to notice what is going on with his article) that in no way implies that they want to keep the article out of spite or such. And while I would agree that there are a few users in previous AfDs who have seemed to want to keep it out of spite not a single user in this DRV has made such a comment and to presume that all or even a substantial fraction of people calling for overturning in this discussion wish to do so out of hatred is not born out by the evidence. JoshuaZ 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Reasonable close out of a horrible mess. This should keep the majority fairly satisfied. I'm not quite sure what else the closing admin could really do. Moreschi 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure This is a weird one. I understand what AMIB was trying to achieve here, but honestly I think most of these child articles are going to need to be deleted as simply not meeting any guidelines or making any strong case for actually being articles here... but that is another issue altogether. I think AMIB's solution was an imperfect one, but realistically there is no good solution to the Brandt article issues. I don't think AMIB acted out of process here... so endorse and move on to AFD's for the articles created out of this close.--Isotope23 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - what the hell is the point of this? --Coroebus 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Would you care to make an actual statement rather than asking a question answered in my nomination and in other comments? JoshuaZ 18:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, whereas DRV is intended for reconsidering articles which may have been deleted with little attention, you're using it because you didn't get what you wanted on the AfD. That's the answer to my rhetorical question. --Coroebus 20:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • It's a fair enough comment. I don't get why we've wasted so much time on Daniel Brandt when it's such a non-key article. Why waste any more? Moreschi 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There isn't any deadline to Misplaced Pages. We have all the time we need to get things right. Given that we have explained serious problems with the attempted close simply asking "what the hell is the point" is not productive. The point has been made very clear. If he thinks there is something that overides it or some reason it is wrong he should say so. If he or you think that you have spent too much time on the matter then go edit something else. JoshuaZ 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is why Wikipedians are notoriously bad at picking their battles. Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project: everyone can do whatever they want, unless they're being disruptive. However, some things are expected of those who voluntarily involve themselves in certain tasks or debates. Regardless, some RFA votes indicate that people are amusingly incapable of comprehending the former. Gracenotes § 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is an open-source, voluntary-participation encyclopedia. Each individual is solely and personally responsible for how much time he or she wastes :) ◄Zahakiel► 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • My point is that a very large number of people have consistently wasted a great deal of time on the question of Brandt, time that could be far better employed. There is no point - there's no reason for us to especially value this article. It's a very minor article. Almost no one has actually heard of Brandt, much less care. There's reason for Brandt to care, because it's an article about him. It's reasonable for him to be worried about it. There's no reason for us to fight tooth and nail to keep it, particularly when it's really quite an awfully incomplete article. No one will ever make that into an FA, because the info is just not there. Under such circumstances it's not unreasonable for us to abandon the biographical approach. When it comes to Brandt's article, that's been proven not to work. Moreschi 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I understand your point, but you can't blame the process for the decisions of individuals. It's saying, "A lot of people have wasted time on this, so this itself must be wrong." There's some personal accountability involved, so to say that people should not express their views (or have an article) because others might choose to waste time on it is not something I can accept as all that forceful. ◄Zahakiel► 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "A lot of people have wasted time on this, this is very unimportant, so don't waste any more!" This is a reasonable solution to the problem: most of the info is retained on Misplaced Pages, just not in the biographical form that's caused so much grief. It's not unreasonable to look at this solution and think "Great. Now, can we please move on?". Moreschi 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • A lot of working processes on Misplaced Pages depends on precedent over time. Big cases like this concern everyone because it essentially sets the precedent for any future decisions. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • That is my point. Just because "a lot of people have wasted time on this" does not mean it's without value in itself. The "lot of people" have their own decisions to make, and several people, myself included, are not saying "Great" when looking at this solution. Hence our current discussion. ◄Zahakiel► 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Quite frankly, if Misplaced Pages has become so stuck into precedent-worshipping that this is used in any meaningful way in future AfDs, we are in serious trouble. Cases should be judged on their own merits, not on those of Daniel Brandt. Moreschi 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Then we are already in serious trouble. You don't have to see beyond its sister processes to see why. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Huh? Sorry, can't understand that. You're going to have to spell it out for me, very slowly. Moreschi 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure "the current close just doesn't work" <-- wrong, it works just fine. Please stop wasting our time. --JWSchmidt 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The guy meets all notability guidelines; if this is an encyclopedia then it should not allow the subjects of its articles to dictate the content of the articles. Perhaps Oliver North will give us a call and tell us to remove all that Iran-Contra stuff; or we'll get the call from Charlie Manson to remove the references to the unfortunate happenings with Sharon Tate; etc. And we'll apply this precedent - perhaps after 14 go-rounds - to do just that. I also object to the blanking of the Afd debate; if something violated WP:BLP delete it & from the history, but to erase the entire debate seems like someone may be hiding something. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We're not bound by precedent. We judge everything on a case-by-case basis. This is not court. (messedrocker • talk) 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • He didn't say so, it looked to me like Carlos was commenting on the general trend and what the same logic could lead to. We all know that in practice precedent matters a lot even if we aren't bound by it. . JoshuaZ 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's an unhelpful slippery slope argument (today Brandt; tomorrow George Bush!!) of the kind we should be steadfastly ignoring as completely unrealistic. Let's stop inventing problems just because we can. SlimVirgin 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • His phrasing may be extreme but the basic idea is not. We have had a definite turn of placing more and more emphasis on whether people want to have articles here. The next stage isn't Hilton or Manson but is Kent Hovind who has expressed issues with his article and I can give other examples. There is a definite trend and Carlos is entitled to find it disturbing. JoshuaZ 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The media has been all over Kent Hovind. Brandt's press coverage couldn't hold a candle to Hovind's. (messedrocker • talk) 19:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Hovind is the next logical step if this trend continues (there may be some in between). Hovind a) has expressed disatisfaction with having a Misplaced Pages article and b) a number of users in both the AfD and the DRV have made noise about the fact that no one prior to us has attempted to write a biography of Brandt and claimed that that was somehow a test of notability. The same comment applies to Hovind. JoshuaZ 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Hovind is emphatically a notable individual, with a high profile in the media and the community which he represents; there's no grounds for removing his biography, whatever happens in the Brandt case. -- ChrisO 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
                • And you are drawing the line where and how? And what assurance are you giving us that this won't change? I can easily give you people midway between Hovind and Brandt. JoshuaZ 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • There's no clear line to draw. Notability is a gradient, not an either/or proposition. Judgement and common sense are required to work out where on the gradient a person might lie, based on a number of criteria - is the person a public figure? have they sought publicity? have they done notable things? have they been the subject of significant third-party coverage? and so on. The fact that nobody has previously tried to write a biography of an individual shouldn't be a criterion; it doesn't mean that it's not appropriate to do so for Misplaced Pages. For instance, as far as I know nobody has written a biography of Milan Martić but nobody would reasonably deny that he's a notable figure worth a biographical article. -- ChrisO 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • First you may want to talk to Carcharoth who seems convinced per his comment at 2:38 in the section above that we shouldn't have one of Martić. In any event, part of the point of having things like WP:N is that we don't want subjective decisions on every article. We want people to know in advance what they can write articles about and what they can't and especially if we are genuinely concerned about BLP issues a consistent standard would be very helpful. (This is all a bit irrelevant since the real issue is that the solution here has many of the bad elements of a deletion and many of the bad elements of keeping and had no consensus behind it). JoshuaZ 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • Frankly, I don't think either Carcaroth's approach or yours are viable. Determining notability on any subject is going to be a subjective matter, based on an editor's knowledge of the subject at hand. Things aren't helped by changes in policy. I've written and supported articles in the past that I probably wouldn't support now. Unfortunately I don't think we're ever going to be able to establish bright lines on an issue like this, simply because views on notability will differ. -- ChrisO 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, I disagree with the outcome, but a merge is a reasonable outcome within the guidelines and supported by the reasoning. Remember, this isn't a delete outcome, and nothing should be deleted based on it nor should this be taken as a precedent for deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment And yet people are already using it as an opportunity to delete content. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CIA HTTP cookies controversy. JoshuaZ 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Baffling DRV nomination statement. Well thought out AfD closure will hopefully break the AfD-DRV cycle/stalemate which has gone on for too long. – Steel 19:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment No such "stalemate" has existed. There has been only one previous DRV and all the other AfDs have resulted in either no consensus or keep. Indeed, the last one ended as a keep. JoshuaZ 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. A Man in Black has done a superb job of balancing the various concerns in a well-reasoned compromise closure. Administrators are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon under the toughest conditions. I did my best to open the nomination on the basis of general principles with respect for the interests of both Misplaced Pages and the living people whose lives have been summarized on this site. Although it's impossible to satisfy everyone on this divisive topic, I believe this closure finds the maximum amount of common ground and builds a good foundation for future resolution of comparable dilemmas. All who participated in this discussion and review have my sincere thanks for their contribution, whatever view they expressed. This has been a very tough situation. My next edit will be to give A Man in Black a barnstar. Durova 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope there won't be any future comparable anythings :) ◄Zahakiel► 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Seth Finkelstein closure hasn't been challenged. It's pretty rare that someone who meets this site's notability and verifiability standards asks to have their biography deleted yet I think it's decent and fair to have some consistent standard. I haven't treated Daniel Brandt as a special case. He's just one individual who made more noise than the others. I considered various potential solutions and made a proposal based upon what seemed the most sustainable basis. It wouldn't be right to give BLP subjects a line item veto on their biographies because that steps upon the slippery slope to censorship and whitewashing. It also wouldn't be fair to the site's readers to extend courtesy deletions to absolutely everyone. So I hope a dead-trees encyclopedia standard is resilient enough for this purpose. I realize that could lead to some strange results in a few specialty areas such as Star Trek, but anyone who's been in the entertainment business for the last third of a century knows that franchise has a very loyal fan following. Overall the site will keep the Oprah Winfreys and Donald Rumsfelds while a few more-or-less private individuals won't get delayed at airport security because this site's vandalism patrollers didn't undo a prank edit quickly enough. Durova 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument to delete all the people who aren't Oprah Winfrey level of fame. Deleting a few who explicitly request deletion won't reduce the number of long-term vandalisms that succeed. JoshuaZ 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Yet considering how many more non-notable people try to get their biographies onto this site, that doesn't seem to be an overriding concern. The individuals who do feel bothered by vandalism, etc. deserve our courteous attention. Obviously there has to be some upper limit to courtesy deletions so I went with the most verifiable standard I could think of. Someone argued late in the AFD that Misplaced Pages could lose Art Garfunkel. Actually I disagree: encyclopedias of rock music history surely cover him. We don't have to confine ourselves to general purpose encyclopedias only. Cheers, Durova 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already communicated my dissatisfaction to the admin who closed Seth Finkelstein -- deleting the article when it was absolutely, unquestionably clear that there was no consensus for that approach. I haven't bothered to DRV it because the purpose of DRV is to review a deletion conducted in violation of the rules. Given the increasing use of WP:IAR to justify whatever people happen to feel like doing, it's obvious that DRVing Finkelstein would be a waste of my time. I'll go ahead and do it, though, if that's the only way to make it clear to you that these two closings have left some people very angry. The possibility that, as you suggest, this sorry episode might be the basis for future decisions is even more upsetting. I hope that it will be recognized as a unique situation that shouldn't be considered guidance in the future. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse decision Heck, I honestly don't care what the result is anymore. I just want it to stick. When I first became aware of the problem several months ago, I thought that a solution similar to the one that has been executed would be a good resolution, and I stand by that opinion. YechielMan 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 4

• Endorse closure because this is what is best for wikipedia. Document the event and not the person for people who are semi-notable (people who have no reliable published biographical treatment of them). As for what Brandt wants, y'all have not been following what he says. He says he is an accountability activist and wants accountability for influential things like wikipedia. He says for wikipedia to be accountable, that the real life identities of the administrators is essential. Don't expect him to just go away no matter what wikipedia does so long as wikipedia is influential and the admins do not reveal their real world identity. He has spent his entire life fighting what he perceives as "the good fight". He enjoys this sort of thing. WAS 4.250 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. I'm impressed with AMIB's well-reasoned closure and I think his proposal is a good solution to the problem. I'd like to address a few other issues that have been raised. First, I don't for a moment believe that "the subject doesn't like it" is a valid reason on its own for deleting the article. If it became known that Tiger Woods disliked his article, would we consider deleting it? I think that question answers itself. The key question is whether the subject is notable. Second, it's pretty clear that some people are !voting based on a desire not to "appease" Brandt by removing his article, while others appear to believe that Brandt will go away if the article is deleted. Neither position is warranted. The criterion for keeping an article should only ever be notability; voting to keep on the basis that it annoys the subject is a thoroughly bad idea. As for Brandt going away and never bothering us again, I'd love to see that but it seems very unlikely, given that he seems to wants an editorial veto over anything said about him, which obviously isn't ever going to happen. This could well be a problem on the successor articles to which the content from Daniel Brandt is dispersed - I can foresee disputes over those and I don't certainly expect this DRV will be the last episode of l'affaire Brandt. -- ChrisO 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You want l'affaire de Brandt. (messedrocker • talk) 21:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope; see Affaire Dreyfus for a parallel example. :-) -- ChrisO 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It depends on whether you're using "Brandt" as an adjective or a noun. In which case, "l'affaire du Brandt" could be more correct as that would be "the Affair of the Brandt". (messedrocker • talk) 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think messedrocker's right... then again, my french is very rusty. And thanks for lightening it up around here guys, I needed that laugh. Kwsn 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't care — Yup, this has been going on long enough now that I really don't care how it ends, I just want it to be over so we can all focus our attention on something else. Hopefully we can all realize that this isn't really an important figure. It's not like we're deleting the biography of a really important person or anything (sorry Brandt!). So I just don't care anymore. Consider me looking on in bemusement. --Cyde Weys 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Tony Sidaway and per SlimVirgin, and probably per several other people, but I haven't read them all. Let's have an end to this. Well done, AMIB. ElinorD (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• The close seems reasonable to me. Deleting after so many AfD-discussions resulted in keeps is rare but not unprecedented. Haukur 22:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, are you endorsing it? -- ChrisO 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like a very neat compromise likely to satisfy many people. This DRV discussion has, on the other hand, shown that it doesn't satisfy nearly everyone. All I can say is that it satisfies me personally. It also seems to be in line with the current operation of our deletion procedures - whether those are good or not I'm not sure but this probably isn't the best place for a meta-argument about that. So, yeah, I guess I'm endorsing the closure. Haukur 23:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong abstain per Cyde Weys. —Ashley Y 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly endorse. I can't fault the closing admin for the decision he made, though I am greatly concerned that this article got to fourteen AfDs. The AfD process clearly needs a tweak -- at least. The moral of this tale is: keep fighting, eventually the other side will get tired of arguing and quit. Js farrar 01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that most of those were speedily closed; only #2 (November 2005) and #13 (March 2007) were not. Really this was the third full debate. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as is. A fine, wise, indeed Solomonic decision. Nice work. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • guffaw - if you are referring to Solomon's decision to get consensus to cut a child in two, that was done to get a definitive decision. Had it been done, nobody would have been better off. Pretty much like the decision to merge! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No, Tabushi. Solomon was reputed to be wise, and closing in this way was wise indeed. We retain a redirect; Brandt's activities are documented; his biography is gone per his wishes; and we're all better off. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - AMiB made a compelling argument for his final decision, one which satisfies Misplaced Pages policy. Consensus is not a straight-jacket, nor an excuse for gridlock. 14 AfDs have shown that consenus was impossible for this article. The only real solution, then, is a policy one, which I feel AMiB made in good faith. By merging the non-biographical content into other, relevant articles, the content was saved while the source of contention was removed. I doubt this will truly end the debate over Brandt, but I think this is the best solution of what to do with the article itself. -- Kesh 02:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your "gridlock" argument. On some issues, attempts to achieve consensus will fail. If your rule of decision is to proceed by consensus, that's the price you pay. I always thought our rule on AfD's was that a failure to achieve consensus defaults to "keep". The new rule, apparently, is that a failure to achieve consensus defaults to "the closing admin does his/her thing". If you object to the consensus rule because there will sometimes be no consensus and you think the result is "gridlock", then you should be proposing a change in the rule. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There are exceptions to every rule. Consensus still, and will continue to, be abided by administrators. This is a lose/lose compromise, some management texts will argue that it is best of all. This biography of a living person has been a long standing issue for the English Misplaced Pages, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the personal lives of users. In this context this is an exception to the rule. 14 AfDs, desysopping, AN and AN/I discussions, phone calls, and disruption of our project. At some point there has to be endgame. Keegan 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • While I realize that many editors are voicing the same view as you, Keegan, it frankly upsets me every time I see it. The way to have an endgame is for people to look at AfD #14 and say that, whatever the alleged flaws of AfD #1 through AfD #13, there were no defects in #14, the issue was fully addressed, there was no consensus to delete, so the article stays. If someone starts AfD #15, this argument about the need for putting the issue behind us is invoked as a reason to close AfD #15 as "keep" unless there's a showing of significant change in circumstances. If Brandt continues to make trouble for us over the article, we grit our teeth and deal with it rather than be bullied. The reason I'm upset is that it's the people who are causing most of the disruption who then say that their view should prevail so as to remove the disruption. JamesMLane t c 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's certainly fair enough that my argument of personal problems that this article has caused, and baited the trolling that started this whole damn thing, is not founded in policy. Daniel Brandt is also one of the users in this war causing disruption. It's been tit for tat for a couple years now. I read the comment below by DGG (I think, there's a lot to read on this page) below that this doesn't actually resolve the interpersonal disputes. Straight out, I never engaged in the Brandt AfDs because there was no point up until this solution. Brandt was marginally notable, but his beef with Misplaced Pages has made him even more notable. So what we have is a fellow who has fought politcally for personal privacy. He gets an article. He proceeds to invade the same privacy that he so cherishes here and causes the longest running Big Stir we have ever had. I know that my fellow endorsers that share my sentiment really see this as the only possible solution. This subject has been hurting the project, in a very real and legitimate way. I can appreciate the overturn that this is not how Misplaced Pages works. We have crossed theoretical line. The problem is that the topic is so blurred that the line doesn't, in reality, exist any more. I don't have much more to say. I enjoy your discussion tact, James. Keegan 05:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • My "gridlock" argument is thus: defaulting "no consensus" to "keep" is rational in normal circumstances. However, certain issues are going to never achieve consensus. All they need is to get enough people involved, and the AfD/DRV/whatever will wind up as "no consensus." Further, admins are required to assess the !votes based on policy arguments. Those who fail to address a policy reason (ILIKEIT for example) are discounted. The only real issue comes when an admin is forced to interpret policy because both sides are interpreting it differently, as with the recent BLP issues. I don't feel that was the case here. The article did not stand up to Misplaced Pages policy, but some of the facts in it were relevant to other articles. Merging that information to the other articles was a sound policy decision, especially when it became clear that a true consensus would never be reached. This sort of situation is why ignore all rules is policy. There are some times where we have to stop letting consensus act as a straightjacket to logical decision-making. -- Kesh 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Your distinction doesn't hold water. You're saying that it's OK for "no consensus" to default to "keep" in normal circumstances, but that turns out to mean "whenever it doesn't matter". In the instances where we eventually achieve consensus, we don't need to apply a rule that addresses lack of consensus. We have the rule because there are lots of articles that will never achieve consensus. If you think that our current rule for dealing with that situation is ill-conceived, you should be working openly to change it, not endorsing a violation of it that happens to produce the result you like in this instance. It seems to me that WP:IAR started out as a useful warning against Wikilawyering but is being used more and more to undercut the very idea of having policies. What it actually says (at the moment) is, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them." In the Brandt DRV, obviously, substantial numbers of Wikipedians believed that following the rules (by keeping the article) would improve Misplaced Pages. Here, your implication that consensus was acting as a straitjacket to logical decision-making means that you (along with others, and the closing admin) believe that the people who dared to disagree with you were illogical, and that makes it OK to ignore the rules. An earlier version of IAR said, "Some actions may be reasonable, even if they might be against a strict interpretation of a certain rule." Note the phrase "strict interpretation". IAR is properly a warning against Wikilawyering, not an invitation to do your own thing regardless of the rules. You might plausibly invoke IAR to defend the Brandt closing against the charge that it was premature (full five days hadn't run). That doesn't mean that you can cut the guts out of the consensus rule whenever you find it inconvenient. JamesMLane t c 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • "dared to disagree with" me? That's a rather melodramatic way of putting it. And I disagree with your interpretation of IAR. Allowing non-consensus to repeatedly grind the editing of this article to a halt is exactly the sort of situation IAR is meant for: when Wikilawyering that a policy (consensus) must be adhered to weakens the encylopedia as a whole. And yes, I do see this situation as an exception to the rule of consensus. It simply was not going to happen, and arguing the default keep from non-consensus is Wikilawyering, in my opinion. AMiB did the sensible thing by merging the useful data into other articles, rather than letting us spin our wheels in process yet again. -- Kesh 01:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I'm not understanding what you think the policy should be. "Lack of consensus defaults to 'keep', unless it's obvious to the closing admin that there will never be consensus, in which case the closing admin does whatever s/he thinks will best improve or maintain Misplaced Pages"? That exception would swallow the rule. Many (probably most) of our non-consensus AfD cases have little or no chance of ever finding consensus. Nor do I understand how following our rules would grind the editing of the article to a halt. People who wanted to edit the kept article could edit it. People who wanted to propose AfD #15 would be discouraged from doing so unless they could point to an arguable change in circumstances. JamesMLane t c 23:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Antandrus and Kesh. One 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I briefly examined this sorry mockery of a situation awhile back, and nearly the very same solution was proposed to be ignored by the luck of the closer. It's clearly the only semi-reasonable one. SnowFire 04:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, mostly per Kesh and SlimVirgin. Will 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Sanity at last!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closure is far from reflecting a consensus of the discussion, but rather seems to be one position presented as if it were the consensus. No consensus is evident in the AfD. The closure does seem to follow the underlying form of WP governance: use of interminable Stalinist dialectics using appropriate WP terms followed by sudden direct action. -R. S. Shaw 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I hate per, but there is nothing more I can say. I agree with A Man in Black's method of deciding how to solve the problem by weighing community opinions and working out a viable solution. Finally. Keegan 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - my comment didn't seem to post the first time... anyways, it may not be based in Misplaced Pages policy but I have serious problems with the notion of deleting articles about public figures (who have through their deliberate actions made themselves public figures) because the subjects of the articles might get their feelings hurt because of the existence of the article. Boo hoo, suck it up, you're notable, deal with it. The "compromise" is ridiculous and was invented out of the whole cloth by the closing admin (no disrespect intended to him, the AFD was ugly). Wikpedia must not be held hostage to people who have articles but don't want to. Otto4711 06:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote struck, second vote from this user (see above Section Break 1). Looks to have been an honest mistake, easy to do when there's section breaks in play. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse whatever. This article defies AFDs, DRVs, common sense and patience. We'd probably need a body that can say definitely whether or not something can be kept, as everything else seems to lead to a ping-pong war. I don't think these discussions accomplish anything relevant so let's just call it a day, kept it as is, and work out solutions outside of AFD/DRV. Sorry for having a kind of a defeatist attitude... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment up above, someone mentioned Seth Finkelstein - see his Guardian article on the subject: I'm on Misplaced Pages, get me out of here. Also, see Angela Beesley, which has a tag on it asking for the article to be improved by expanding. This misses the point that it might be impossible to expand it as there may not be any more publically available information! At the end of the day, the right time to write a comprehensive, stable, encyclopedia article about a person is after they are dead, and when the relevant sources start to assess and take stock of that person's life - the starting point is usually the obituaries. While people are still living, articles tend to be aggregates of contemporary opinion and written by updating at intervals. That makes it difficult to provide a proper persepctive. Should we have articles on people that are notable for brief periods, and then remove them when it becomes apparent later that they are receding into the footnotes of history? Or should we err on the side of caution and wait (there is no deadline, remember) until it becomes clear that a person is definitely notable? Carcharoth 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Angela Beesley is now nominated for deletion too. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (4th nomination). --Itub 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I "voted" keep, but if the decision had been delete I would have said "oh, we lost, forget about it, move along" (something that at least 13 deletionists couldn't do). But the pseudo-merge decision makes no sense. I'd rather have a simple delete. Really, redirecting Daniel Brandt to NameBase is like redirecting George W. Bush to United States. A very poor use of a redirect. --Itub 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closing Enough is enough.--MONGO 11:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure agree with MONGO. Bastique 12:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to necessarily single out these two above, but I sincerely hope that whosoever closes this procedure also takes into account the number of "endorse" comments that are simply, "We've had enough of this," or are apathetic in nature, rather than actually looking at how well or unwell the closing reflects the standards that Misplaced Pages has advocated in the past. Doing something worthwhile takes work, and sometimes it takes weathering unpleasant situations; I don't think defeatism has any value here... if people are tired of this issue, there are other things to do on this website, but those who look in and comment about how long they've been dealing with this matter, or how much of their lives they have wasted on it, are simply muddying the waters for those who haven't yet decided that this issue is unimportant for future decisions. ◄Zahakiel► 13:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Zahakiel, I think the apathy is to be expected. Wikipedians have a huge amount of "elbow room" for adding biographical articles to Misplaced Pages. In general, if a few Wikipedians are interested in some minor internet personality, it does no harm to let them produce a small biographical article; there are probably several hundred people in the world who will some day use the article. However, the perspective of the Misplaced Pages community does change when the subject of a biographical article objects to having an article about them. "When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted." It is common for the people who want an article about semi-notable internet personalities to argue that Misplaced Pages should not care if the subject of a biography objects. These Wikipedians who have some personal interest the biography page often band together and protect it from deletion. What can happen next is that other members of the Misplaced Pages community increasingly have their attention drawn to the page deletion debate until such time that enough Wikipedians who have never heard of the semi-notable internet personality and who really do not care one bit about the semi-notable internet personality are paying attention and the article can be deleted. It is only natural that the group of Wikipedians who end up getting the article deleted are basically uninterested, bored, and resentful that they have had to waste time with the deletion process. In short, the fact that many people are bored with the the process by which biographies of minor internet personalities are deleted is not a reason to keep such biographical articles. --JWSchmidt 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You wrote, "It is only natural that the group of Wikipedians who end up getting the article deleted are basically uninterested, bored, and resentful that they have had to waste time with the deletion process." They don't and they didn't. If they don't care about it, fine, but they shouldn't advance that as a position to either keep or overturn someone's thoughtful work (AMiB's decision was, if nothing else, thoughtful). It may be "natural" for some people to get tired of a particular issue, it may be "expected;" that doesn't mean it's helpful or correct to advance their personal problems with the process as a reason to circumvent or unduly alter its outcome. It certainly doesn't mean that a closing administrator should give those kinds of arguments equal weight to those who (on BOTH sides) actually address the matter at hand. I'm not saying there aren't any good arguments for endorsing the decision - I am saying these are not it. I fully stand by what I said. ◄Zahakiel► 14:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment I have to agree with Zahakiel, there is nothing good that can come with "I'm tired of this fuss, let's just leave it" mentality. Heck, the new Namebase article is having problems identifying Daniel Brandt in any kind of descriptive way. Sorry, but while I can understand how people might be exhausted, that's a personal problem, not a reason to decide how Misplaced Pages is going to go. If you're tried of something...do something else. There's plenty other work to do. But don't try to use it to shape how Misplaced Pages is going to look. Good reasoning does not, and should not include factoring in one's personal frustrations. It's one thing to recognize you're beating your head into a wall and move around, it's another thing to just leave the wall blocking the road and saying "Well, I can't knock it down, let's just obstruct traffic" instead. Eh, I'm probably not making much sense here, but I'm still not convinced that there is any merit in accepting the statements of people who are saying "I'm tired of this, let's just accept this solution" . That only reflects on their personal feelings, not the article itself. Mister.Manticore 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This is exactly how controversial AfDs should be closed, with detailed reasoning and comments on arguments made by both sides of the debate. Chaz 12:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure, treat AFD as a no consensus closure, let the merge/redirect actions stand as editorial action subject to usual consensus operations It is pretty bloody obvious that there was no consensus in the AFD discussion. As such, any closure other than no consensus represents a single admin describing their judgment as something it is not. It is, however, reasonable (and at the page where they took notes well-reasoned) action. The default action for a no consensus closure is to keep the article, making it fully subject to the editorial process. As the actions taken are reasonable, there is no reason for deletion review to compel that they be reverted. Bold, revert, discuss is probably not recommended at this point. I'd rather see bold, disuss, adjust. I note that one of the new articles has already gone to AFD and been closed to give the community more time. I suggest that any/all other new articles be given some time. Let them get edited into something reasonable before AFDing them. GRBerry 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Advice for course of discussion: How about instead of arguing over whether there was a consensus or not -- instead, let's try to create more consensus and more compromise. (messedrocker • talk) 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any argument about whether or not there was a consensus. Most if not all people here recognize that there wasn't, and some are simply stating that - but some think the decision was a good one and want to keep it anyway. Some are saying consensus is not as important as X other factor, and some are saying, "Let's just forget the whole thing and move on." That seems to be the current state of affairs. ◄Zahakiel► 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus is not just a matter of how many people said a particular thing. The approach in this close took the main argument each way (keep because the information should be available, and delete because this shouldn't be presented as a biography) and found a course of action that was compatible with both. That's consensus in my book. --bainer (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not talking about vote-counting either. To tell you the truth, I didn't even see consensus reached about whether or not the subject of the article was even semi-notable so that the BLP's addition could even be applied. A lot of people said that he was "definitely notable," and provided a number of sources in support of their viewpoint. A lot of people do not, in fact, feel that the arguments they raised during the AfD (including that one about notability, for an example) were given a proper place in the ultimate decision, and that's why this discussion precipitated. And see above re: my statements about what consensus is or is not. I haven't yet read any guideline or rule that says, "Misplaced Pages works by compromise." As someone insightfully said above, even Solomon's declaration resulted in a decided decision (one way other the other) and the party who was not favored had to deal with it and "move on," as so many have been saying we should do - although not always for the right reasons. ◄Zahakiel► 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone had proposed the merger in the AfD discussion, and if most people on both sides had agreed that it was "a course of action that was compatible with both" main arguments, then there would be consensus. That wasn't done. You can't say it's consensus in your book because you don't get to speak for everyone else in establishing consensus. As is obvious from the number of editors calling for this action to be overturned, it did not have consensus support. JamesMLane t c 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think GRBerry and Messedrocker are both pretty close to it here. So, I propose the following:
  • Leave Daniel Brandt itself as a protected redirect for a limited (not unlimited) period of time, perhaps a month or two.
  • Let the situation settle out. See if the new articles are combined, deleted, edited and added to, whatever the case may be.
  • Once the protection is soon to expire, head to the talk page and start up a good discussion on "How has this actually worked out? Are people satisfied with it, dissatisfied, don't care anymore? Does anyone intend to reverse the merge? Does anyone intend to reverse them if they do?" That way, it can be settled by editorial consensus and editorial actions rather than at AfD, as should've happened in the first place. Seraphimblade 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    People are falling over themselves to endorse the closure made by A Man In Black. Let's go with his suggestion. No need to muddy the waters at this stage. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    That would, in essence, be an endorsement of AMiB's closure. But certainly we should not leave the redirect protected forever. That's exactly why I propose leaving it alone (and enforcing it being left alone) for a while. Alternatively, I suppose we could see if anyone requests unprotection in the future, but I think it'd be better to have a time at which anyone interested knows it'll be due for reexamination. Seraphimblade 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Saying we won't protect forever is good, setting a timetable may not be so good. I'd suggest that now is probably the wrong time to discuss such matters. As I say this is just muddying the waters. If someone does ask for reprotection then the idea can be considered on its merits in the circumstances pertaining at the time. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    I set it to expire in a year. That worked for Brian Peppers. We can just come back later and the history will still be there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Heartily endorse original closure. Let's end this sad saga, a streak on Misplaced Pages's already bad reputation. Martinp23 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. To satisfy the pedants who claim that everyone must give a reason and not refer to previous arguments, I'll point out that the deletion had lots of keep and delete comments, and just about no merge comments. A discussion with a lot of keep and delete comments is "no consensus", not "merge", which almost nobody supported. The result was blatantly not following procedure, and I get the impression that the closing admin wanted to delete but couldn't justify it so he decided to merge as the next best way of doing so.

And it's especially important to follow our own procedures when the article is about something related to Misplaced Pages. We should neither keep the article to spite an attacker, nor delete it to pacify him; we should treat it like other articles. Any other article with a vote like this would have been kept as no consensus. Ken Arromdee 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Your points would have a lot more validity if AfD was a vote, but it isn't. The raw number of keep or delete comments in the AfD is irrelevant. Chaz 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What's a raw number? Would removing the word 'raw' change the truth value of your statement? Haukur 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No. --Iamunknown 05:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I just meant that in an AfD with X Keeps and Y Deletes, the values of X and Y are irrelevant. By "raw numbers", I meant looking just at a simple percentage of Keeps vs Deletes. Chaz 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unrealistic Comments A very common reason for Endorse is because people are tired of the discussion (which could equally support a close of Overturn) But neither will actually end the discussion. The people who feel strongly one way or another will undoubtedly continue: One way there will be another AfD in a few weeks, the other, when the next item about him is found or published, it will be added, the article rewritten slightly to meet some of the objections. And then we go again.DGG 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that turns out to be the case. Without counting !votes, my read is that most endorsers are saying AMIB did nothing wrong, or that the merge solution is a viable compromise which reflects the (lack of) consensus between the delete and keep sides. Possibly a synth, possibly not, but I see the "I'm tired" endorsers in the distinct minority. As to your other comments about round-and-round we go, isn't that what Misplaced Pages is, on contentious and difficult subjects? And what else could it be, without being an editorial dictatorship? LaughingVulcan 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is sometimes what WP is, and it's wrong. WP should have evolved into some consistency long ago & it is very disappointing to anyone who consider WP discussions relevant as issues and not as battles of will. There was consistency in this decision: over 10 valid keep decisions in a row, most of them as speedy keep, and then another time,and change it all. This is play again till you win. But we're not a game, we want to get somewhere, we want to have articles & to have them stay there. DGG 03:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following, without disagreeing with you per se: Who do you define as "we?" Am I (or, more to the point, the editors who disagree with you) somehow less than a Wikipedian? I'd bet that most of those in the "other camp" would agree that WP is not a game, and that they also want to get somewhere. But they don't agree that keeping this article, in this form, is the way to get there. And I don't believe that Durova was attempting to game the system in nominating the article, nor that AMIB was gaming the system in his close.

Also, "shoulds" are great, but come up with policy that respects WP:CONS and it's important subpoint WP:CCC and yet lets one lock things down. Especially the things that one believes should exist while letting the "other stuff" go. And then allows every other Wikipedian to do the same. And when you come up with it, there would be no dissent.

And yeah, I thought also that there was a flavor of "asking the other parent" about this also. Certainly many of the responses, on both sides, repeated exactly the same steps as before. Except that there is indeed the new section of BLP there, a case of consensus changing in policy. And a case could be made that, as the AfDs increased, so did a changing and growing consensus for deletion. It appears to me that things had finally come to the point where there is no placating either side, and that equal consenses existed between keep and delete. Hence the decision which was made, which I've not yet seen defended as an interpretation of allowing the closing Admin to take the self-request for deletion into consideration at the close. If it holds, it will certainly be a way the neither the extreme keep nor extreme delete camps get entirely what they want. Nor denying them everything that was wanted. What's the old saw about "when everyone disagrees with you, you have balance?" LaughingVulcan 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I'm a fan of merging, but not when there are multiple targets for the merge. This is a person known for multiple things, not one thing to which he can be redirected. --NE2 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Completely improper close. Such a merge might be a good idea as an editoria judgement, although I doubt it. But ther simply was no consensus for such a merge in the AfD discussion, and an AfD clsoer should not try to invent a solution, however clever, that does not have consensus in the AfD. Also, such a merge would not be a long-term solution, as merges by AfD are not enforcable decisions, and any editor could undo the merge perfectly legitimately at any time, and I am sure that someone promptly would. DES 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Such an edit would be an invitation to wheel war, and thus wheel warring, SqueakBox 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you may want to read what the page on wheel wars actually says. "an invitation to wheel war" is not a wheel war and an undoing of a merge is not an admin action and therefore is not a wheel war no matter what. JoshuaZ 02:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    But whatever you do, don't try it. Wikilawyering seldom impresses the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    • We'll see what they say, because if this close is left as is, I will at least consider undoing the merge as a normal editing action. If anyone reverts, we'll see what happens on the relevant talk pages. DES 05:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Though I'm neutral on whether or not Brandt should have his own page, I suggest that Daniel Brandt should redirect to Public Information Research, not NameBase, given that the latter is run by the former. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Congratulate AMIB for devising an excellent compromise, thank him for his hard work, and endorse his proposal per Lar, InkSplotch, Carcharoth, Crum375, Spike Wilbury, Flyguy649, Sjakkalle, and others. Having a biographical article on Brandt adds very little to Misplaced Pages and seems to suck up way too much of people's editing time. CWC 03:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as merge. I agree with others who endorse AMIB's closure that his was a good endeavour to make sense of the madness that ensued in the AFD, and I agree with no reason to overturn it. --Iamunknown 05:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 5

It has been suggested multiple times that such-and-such editor is planning or considering undoing the merge as though it were a typical editorial decision, and come up with various reasons it wouldn't be wheel warring or inappropriate or whatever. Assuming, for the moment, that this merge is upheld on DRV, this would be unwise.

I intended this as an enforceable resolution (assuming WP:DRV didn't overturn it), as it seemed like the only hope to resolve all of this. I realize this isn't typical at AFD, but this isn't a typical situation. I protected the page to force this issue in the same way that a deletion would, because it was the closest thing to deletion of this namespace as is practical, due to GFDL issues. It was my hope that this close would be enforced.

If you don't think that this was the right solution, this DRV is the place to overturn it. Reversing the page protection after this DRV upheld the close would only be needlessly reopening a disruptive fight.

Obviously, none of this is applicable if the DRV overturns the AFD close. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I think the biggest problem is that you didn't get consensus for the decision you made on its own right, and like it or not, this DRV will completely blow past that. Heck, I wouldn't even say that your choice of redirect targets was appropriate. I think, regardless of the decision of this DRV, there should be a discussion on the split (which this really is, it's not a merge, it's a split of the article's contents) elsewhere. I can see there's already been trouble on the Namebase article about the content. Therefore, I suggest at the leas,t a discussion at Talk:Daniel Brandt or elsewhere to cover the redirect target, and see if there is indeed consensus for your actions in their own right. Mister.Manticore 06:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooh, forgot the redirect target thing. I meant it when I said that I punted on that; it's been suggested that Public I-something something be the redirect target, and that seems reasonable. The close was "Split this into other articles and redirect it." The hows are just details. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Which is why it'd have been a good thing if you had started a discussion for that specific outcome instead of just dropping it on folks. Not that I'm seeing much in the way of consensus for that either, but oh well. Mister.Manticore 06:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think there was any possibility of useful discussion of this relatively minor point in the middle of the thunderous uproar that was that AFD. Sometimes you have to get the important stuff out of the way before getting to the little stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Close the AFD as no-consensus, put a tag to discuss a proposed merge/move on it, see what happened. Mister.Manticore 13:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 6

• Overturn If this article is redirected, the trolls have won. Fuck Brandt and Wikipedians who care about his "privacy".  Grue  08:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• You might not be aware, but WP:DRV is by no means a format for you to express your opinions on the original content of the article. It is not a "second AfD", and only exists as a flat out vote to determine if the community "endorses" or "overturns" the procedural close by the admin in question. As for your comment - please watch out for making personal attacks, and bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is not here to ruin peoples' lives. To take a somewhat more extreme example: we get articles created every day about what one previously non-notable person did which gave them fame around a country, or part of the internet. Do we need these articles, which no one will care about in 2 months, appearing at the top of every google search, and potentially putting a scar on the reputation of the person in question? I think not - Misplaced Pages should have morals. Of course, my posting of this comment is somewhat hypocritical, so any further discussion with me about it should probably go elsewhere :) Martinp23 09:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• You might not be aware, but there has been more than 10 AfDs that estabilished that Brandt is notable. You might not be aware, but Brandt has himself ruined Wikipedian's lives by posting their personal information on his website. You might not be aware, but most of those who argue for deletion of this article are either Brandt's socks or socks of trolls who have been banned from Misplaced Pages. You might not be aware, but you shouldn't mention "morals" in a discussion about Daniel Brandt.  Grue  11:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since Brandt has ruined the privacy of other people, we should behave just like him? (messedrocker • talk) 14:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Of course I'm aware. I'm also aware that it is was the Misplaced Pages community which got us into this mess in the first place by not deleting the article the first time it was AfDed, so (understandably) inflaming Brandt. Everyone did things they would by now regret. It's time to bury the hatchet and get rid of the article. Brandt is not our mortal enemy, and treating him like he is will only cause problems for many others - not just yourself.Martinp23 15:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Brandt's personal conduct on Misplaced Pages ought to have no bearing on our decisions regarding this article. WP:IDONTLIKEHIM is another form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Durova 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is exactly what I'm saying. Were it not for Brandt's antics, this article would be a keeper for sure. But Brandt wants it deleted. So why we should care about him? Even if he was a respectable person he cannot influence what's encyclopedic or not. He shown himself as a complete asshat and still there are "Wikipedians" rushing to defend him in spite of everything. What the hell? This article is deleted only because Brandt wants it deleted. "Brandt's personal conduct on Misplaced Pages ought to have no bearing on our decisions regarding this article"? I agree.  Grue  16:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I nominated Seth Finkelstein at the same time and for the same reasons. I don't defend Mr. Brandt's actions; I even opened a formal community ban discussion on him in order to eliminate any semantic doubt about his block/ban status at this site. Yet I consider it intellectually dangerous to write off a person's ideas entirely based upon antics. I saw something legitimate in his protests about site policies; the question was how to accommodate that without embarking on a slippery slope or some special pleading fallacy. That is, if I had supported Brandt's ostensibly reasonable request to delete a few neutral details about his childhood then I would have found myself on shaky ground regarding attempts at whitewashing on other BLP articles: I don't want to see the United States congressional offices IP range delete broken campaign promises from some representative's biography, and yes that's happened. It was national news in January 2006 and if you read that IP range's contributions and block history you'll see the problem hasn't evaporated. One characteristic shared by many of the editors who eventually get sitebanned is that they propose solutions that would work for their own particular dilemma but that aren't scalable: it would hurt Misplaced Pages overall to establish the precedents they want. It's also quite possible that, indirectly, these people have found the pulse of some genuine problem that deserves our attention. To express the most legitimate thing I've found in his criticisms in my own words, Misplaced Pages hasn't done the best job of balancing BLP concerns in our efforts to redefine the limits of encyclopedic content for the internet age. Consensus at Misplaced Pages often neglected the human side of the equation: I believe in rigorous enforcement of WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc. when an article actually exists. I believe in that strongly enough that I've been coaching a group of talented editors into administrators to keep up with the undermanned conflict of interest noticeboard. But regardless of my views about Daniel Brandt's conduct, a viable and well-defined opt out for BLP makes good sense. Durova 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse I hereby award you the game-theory Pareto optimal barnstar, for finding a functional solution to a theoretically intractable factional problem -- Seth Finkelstein 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we deleted this article, the keep camp will get pissed. If we keeped this article, the delete camp will get pissed. If we ended no consensus, the AfD's will never end. What's the only possible decision left? Merge/redirect. Let's congratulate the closing admin for ending this once and for all. Sr13 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the AfDs had pretty much died down (for the moment). The only reason it was brought up again was because it was testing the article against a new policy shift, not because "those horrible deletionists" (note the quote marks) wouldn't let it go. The sky wasn't falling... and we have yet to see if this has been ended once and for all. ◄Zahakiel► 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I wasn't part of any delete camp and have generally been leaning more toward inclusionism the longer I edit. I'm an outspoken inclusionist on "in popular culture" sections and articles. Durova 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This article has been a bone of contention that has disrupted the community for a long time. With strong feelings on all sides a decision to either deletion or keep would not have been satisfactory. This solution reasonably addresses many of the issues raised by all sides. While it may not satisfy everyone, it is perhaps the best possible outcome. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. A complicated problem is probably going to result in a complicated solution. There's no rule saying that something has to be one of "keep delete merge" in every deletion discussion. Relevant information has been kept or merged somewhere.--Wafulz 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I waited until late in the game on this DRV to see what other people who were pro overturning would write... Based on what i've read above it seems the opposes are more from the "this was a defacto delete" camp. I strongly feel that they are idiots. AFD closing with a merge/redirect/split/no consensus does not prohibit, and does allow a close as was done in this case. The rest of the arguments come more from the "this is daniel brandt screw him keep" camp (I was a member of this camp once) frankly this is a travesty and very much the antithesis to the BLP policy. AMiB did his best to consider the votes, and I believe he showed us the best possible solution here. When both sides are pissed you know it was done with a balanced hand.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per User:Jahiegel, User:Aquillion, User:Zahakiel (including his comments regarding "enough is enough" comments), and User:JamesMLane. Most of what I'd say here has already been said, but I would like to express my concern about AMiB's comment at his subpage that "Brandt's interests are at the heart of the argument to delete." I mentioned this at the Finkelstein AfD as well. My reading of the new BLP section relevant to AfD is that the article's subject's concerns can be taken into consideration by the closing admin, but not that the subject's wish for the article's deletion is itself a reason to delete, and therefore that an argument to delete with Brandt's interests at its heart is hardly a valid argument at all. --Maxamegalon2000 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with extreme prejudice and sanction every one of the admins who has ever supported denying Brandt his right to have the article on him deleted Puppy Mill 01:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

we do not sanction the losing side in an honestly disputed matter. DGG 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Brandt doesn't have that right, just like Brad Pitt doesn't have that right. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn — the article should be kept. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure AMIB made sound arguments; I agree with them and salute him for his decision. Eusebeus 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - this was going to be a lose-lose situation and I think AMIB made the best out of it. We can't please everyone but this is a reasonable compromise that hopefully won't have too many people screaming. -- Tawker 18:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)