The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP (and overwhelmingly, at that). BD2412T 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No vote. Several users at Talk:Daniel Brandt, expressed a desire to renominate this for deletion, with the subject of debate being Mr. Brandt's notability. I'll let someone who actually wants it deleted argue for its deletion; I'm just setting up the renom. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD Summary This article was nominated for deletion a few days ago. After about two days there were 22 Keeps and 3 deletes. Of those deletes, one was Daniel Brandt, one was an anonymous IP making a first edit, and the third was an IP that has only ever edited Daniel Brandt and one other article. jucifer 23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I purposefully did not link that AFD, since I agree that it was largely about not allowing Brandt to control the article on himself. This AFD is at the request of FRS, who would have listed this himself had he known how to do a renom. Given that FRS is not a Brandt sock (I assume Brandt isn't placing sleeper agents on WP ;D), I don't think the desire to prevent Brandt from controlling WP's coverage of himself isn't really relevant. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable founder of google-watch and wikipedia-watch. Performs a valuable service, even if I believe he's a bit weird. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Google Watch was all he was known for, I would support a merge or delete. However, I consider his history of activism, his creation of NameBase, and his work with the likes of Philip Agee and publications like Covert Action Quarterly equally if not more important than his quixotic anti-google crusade. With that said, I support letting this VFD run its full course so there is clear and undeniable consensus for a keep we can point to if this issue comes up again. Gamaliel 22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, while I don't much care either way about this topic, I will revert any speedy close of this AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable individual by any of wikipedia's criteria. No question about this. Brandt's desire not to have an article about himself on wikipedia is of no consequence IMHO. He has no greater right to edit the article than anyone else (arguably - perhaps less); therefore he has no greater right to have the article deleted than anyone else (arguably - perhaps less). jucifer 22:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brandt's desire not to have an article on himself is not at issue here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I agree with you. But some think that Brandt's desires are at issue - like FRS for example.jucifer 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fbow, I DO think that the wishes of the subject of an article should be taken into account where the the subject's notability is marginal and the subject's views are ascertainable. If the subject is truly a non-public person (not quite the same as non-notable, I suppose) and wishes to remain so, I don't believe we have the right to splash information about him/her on WP, even information that might be true and veriable (e.g., someone is sued or loses a nn lawsuit). Here, it's (to me anyway) a close question whether Brandt is enough of a public/notable figure that we can feel free to disregard his wishes.FRS 23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - if it's a case of borderline notability, there's every reason to respect the subject's wishes (as a sort of casting vote). Rd232talk 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of this article is only marginally notable, and most of what notability does exist arises from what is essentially a current dispute in which WP and (more recently) several editors/admins are involved. The subject of the article vigorously objected to being the subject of an article (after trying unsuccessfully to control its content), and the disagreements rapidly escalated to his being indefinitely blocked. Given his marginal notability and the ongoing, current, dispute with WP, I think this article should be deleted. At least, the pros and cons of doing so should be fully aired. FRS 22:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Since the last RfA I have seaached the web for content about Brandt. I'm no longer as confident that he is notable. His attacks upon me and others make me lean towards keep (to spite him), but I musn't let emotion cloud my judgment. Let it be known that I did not support the speedy keeping in the previous VfD. BrokenS 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable, his disagreement with his article is no reason to delete it. -Greg Asche(talk) 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and encyclopædic article. Tonywalton | Talk 23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge with Google Watch. I don't think Brandt clearly passes an "average activist" test. I'm not convinced that Namebase is notable enough for its own entry, so his creation of it isn't enough; details on his involvement with various alternative publications are sketchy and the details we do have appear non-notably techy; his teaching of computer skills to a few fairly well-known people doesn't seem that notable. Does his involvement with the anti-Vietnam war whilst at university seem that significant? I don't think so. What's left is Google Watch, which again doesn't seem notable enough to justify a separate entry on its founder. It is a weird post-modern irony that at this point Brandt's attempts to delete his Wikipedia article (on the basis that he isn't notable) may be a significant factor in him being considerered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (at least by Wikipedians - probably not by your average man-in-the-street). But I would suggest that if this episode does have any wider significance then it could perhaps more relevantly be documented under Wikipedia. A delete/merge of this article (with Google Watch) would retain most notable material and be a reasonable outcome. Also, (post-modernism again) - the injunction on people to be careful about editing articles about themselves should also apply to articles where Wikipedia itself is covered; there's an obvious potential for bias of various types since almost by definition most Wikipedians are more favourably disposed towards Wikipedia than most non-Wikipedians. Rd232talk 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that once again, there is very little discussion, and instead merely assertion of the issue in question (notability). We have a reference to WP:BIO, but nothing there obviously covers Brandt. There are on that page also alternative tests that have been proposed, but these are not established as guidelines and it is not clear under which of these Brandt would fall in any case. People should also be careful not to confuse notability and verifiability. Rd232talk 06:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe we could start a third AfD on this article now, so we could all vote on it at the same time.--Nicodemus75 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)#[reply]
There is a very good reason for this second AfD and that is many believed the last AfD nomination to be bad faith and thus voted speedy keep. This AfD is definitely not bad faith. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is both notable (by WP:BIO and verifiable. At the very least, it should be kept as a redirect to Google Watch and it's content merged there. Not speedy. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - [1], [2], [3]. Even if he doesn't meet WP:BIO, I think he will still be verifiable in 10 years or so. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and verifiable. Ral315(talk) 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is (at least marginally) notable; I'm inclusionist enough to set the bar pretty low for this. His attempts to suppress the page only make Wikipedians more inclined to want to keep it to spite him, though this is a "base emotional reaction" that probably shouldn't go into the final decision. However, his silly and baseless legal threats would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the American legal system is so screwed up that people can force others to spend huge amounts of money defending against baseless claims. But we shouldn't give in to such claims nevertheless; that would be letting the terrorists win! *Dan T.* 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Canderson7 04:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Rogerd 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as before. It's simply not true that "most of what notability does exist arises from what is essentially a current dispute in which WP." Google Watch gives him the necessary significance for an article. (Also, be warned that Brandt is advising people to create meatpuppets to influence this vote). Superm401 | Talk 05:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't seem to have had any noticeable success at this (recruiting meatpuppets), however, which ironically is an argument in favor of the non-notability of his sites; they don't even seem to have enough "friends" or "fans" to make a showing in an attempt to stuff the ballot box his way. Some others who have tried to suppress their own articles in similar fashion have at least managed to get a few supporters to show up. *Dan T.* 15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For archival and CYA purposes, I have uploaded a screenshot of the notice in case Brandt tries to pull some foolish stunt like calling us liars. Linuxbeak | Talk 20:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]File:Wikiwatchdeletion.PNGScreenshot of Deletion notice
Keep very notable. Klonimus 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has had articles written about him in major publications. Nohat 07:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the figure appears to be notable enough. Yamaguchi先生 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going to vote one way or the other, except to point out that Daniel Brandt is at least as notable as several other people who have their own Wikipedia articles. As someone who objects to the notability of many such biographies, however, that's not necessarily an argument for keeping Brandt's article. I do want to encourage voters, however, to base their decisions here on whether they feel Brandt is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, on not on his behaviour here. Specifically, I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will not be intimidated by his legal posturing into deleting the article; neither would I want this article to be kept simply to spite Brandt for trying to have it removed. —Psychonaut 09:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As before, Keep as a semi-notable "activist" with mild media attention and founder of notable website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a related and interesting new case. In the court's order linked to that article, the judge applied Florida law to find the plaintiff was a public figure because "(1) a public controversy exists; (2) plaintiff played a central role in the controversy; (3) the alleged defamation was germane to plaintiff's involvement in the controversy." The court applied this rule to the defamation complaint, and then threw out the invasion of privacy complaint because it arose from the same publication. FRS 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I don't get put on his list for this, but I ran a Nexis search and his name came back with a lot of media mentions. Therefore notable, therefore keep. --LV(Dark Mark) 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable and batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion. Lord Bob 19:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hilarious bit, of course, is that I don't think he would have been nearly as notable without his campaign at wikiwatch. Therefore, by his actions he has guaranteed notoriety. However, even his campaign regarding Google is notable in the Internet world. Jacqui★ 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well if he wasn't notable enough he sure is now. Pretty amusing stuff. The author not wanting an article about himself is certainly not a reason for deletion. chowells 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He needs an article on him. He definitely fits the definition of public figure, at least on the internet (several independant news articles on him), has almost half a million results on google for his name, and operates several significant watch sites. And he needs to know that he can't push wikipedia around with legal threats and claims of conspiracy. Elyk53 06:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)(This was the first edit of Elyk53(contribs) Superm401 | Talk 06:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Note: After having a CheckUser done on this user, it was revealed that it originated from the San Antonio area. Seeing that Daniel Brandt is located in San Antonio (see this, which I found using, you guessed it, Google), and those edits are the only edits this user has ever made, I bet that it was either Brandt or one of his friends. Sorry, Brandt. We throw out keep and oppose votes from any meat/sockpuppets. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something was up! I geuss when he saw how the voting was going, he decided that if he put in some fake votes for "keep" he could at least claim that the vote was rigged against him. Fabricating conspiracy theories - who would have thought it? Hmmm, maybe it is the CIA doublebluffing us. Or the freemasons. Or the WTO. Or the neocons. No, cummon thats just dumb - it has to be the mossad.
Keep The watchers must be watched. Also, he's funny. I'm looking forward to having this comment posted on [ħttp://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]. // E23 15:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ironically enough, I think this whole affair qualified him for his own article Obli 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, complaining to wikimedia and attempting to get information about yourself removed from wikipedia does not make you notable. That said, I think brandt is notable for other reasons. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that, I was referring to his one-man crusade against wikipedia, not to mention Google, sorry for not making myself clear. Obli 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is not self-referential. We don't have an article about editors only famous (or infamous) within WP (Jimbo, Angela, and a few others excluded. But they are in here for other reasons, not just WP).
delete who cares who this guy is? At most there should be a one para article. So much detail is senseless. He's not that notable. He's no Abbie Hoffman, nor is he a Peter Norton. Why are we bothering this guy? I say leave him be and delete or radically prune this article. If this ever becomes a public controversy, re: Wiki vs. Brandt, all kinds of kooks will come out of the woodwork. The last thing you want is the "fight the power" crowd starting to think that this Wiki is "the power" to be "fought". That would be terrible. Again I say, prolonging Brandt's anger will not accrue to the long term benefit of this wiki. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly worthy of discussion and documentation. Andy Mabbett 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More notable than Cyrus (pronounced suh-ROOS). And since when did people decided whether there should be an encyclopedia article about them? Do you think Bill Gates authorized his wiki entry? - Hahnchen 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems (at least a little) notable to me, at least enough so to keep. And it certainly is bizarre that he on one hand claims to be a private figure, and on the other hand publishes public sites like ħttp://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ -- which way does he want it? CarbonCopy 21:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable Wikipedia critic. His ridiculous legal threat [4] is obviously moot so he poses little legal threat to Wikipedia — if he himself uses Wikipedia as a forum for legal threats, we can always ban him. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable both for his criticism of Wikipedia and for Google Watch ➥the Epopt 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's now notable, if nothing else, for being a major and public Wikipedia critic as per Obli. Oh, and I'm an admin, so does that mean the admin crusade can begin against me as well? :sigh: I look forward to being part of the hivemind. FCYTravis 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ban Daniel Brandt forever for legal threats. Oh, and put me on his hitlist of people to sue because I don't think he can dictate policy to Wikipedia over what we can or can't print. --Ryan Delaneytalk 23:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable information, notability is not a deletion criterion, yada yada yada. James F.(talk) 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
