Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrick Brennan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with no prejudice towards any trusted editor redirecting after merging the contents, post a consensus on the relevant talk page. Wifione Message 18:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Brennan[edit]

Fredrick Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All significant coverage is only marginally about the person and primarily about 8chan/GamerGate (who have their own articles, of course). The only exception is about the thievery and his disease, which both seem ill-advised pillars upon which to build an entire article (per WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM).

Keep in mind that the fact he is interviewed as a significant voice in the Gamergate/8chan situation may mean he is a reliable source for his opinion(s), but does not mean he is directly notable.

A secondary possibility would be a merge to a paragraph in the article about his definitely notable project, 8chan. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 8chan. Doesn't seem particularly notable apart from the site, agree with the nom's assessment of the article's sources. Doesn't have the coverage level of Zoe Quinn or similar to warrant an article on Gamergate. Would have suggested a merge to 8chan but the article seems to already have him (and the rest of the usable information on his page) covered substantially. Deadbeef 05:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Brennan actually had better claims for notability than 8chan for a while there given non-GamerGate coverage of his disability and his mugging, but 8chan also has independent coverage at this point. There is now sufficient basis under WP:GNG for articles on both 8chan and Frederick Brennan.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have both sources and notabilty (creator of 8chan). I don't see any complaints about our page on Christopher Poole. This is just gamergate politics spilling into related articles. Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input; I'd like to clarify I am not taking any stance in any Gamergate-related discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has shown to be notable outside of 8chan Loganmac (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Al Jazeera America article and the New York Times article are significant coverage, and don't even mention 8chan or GamerGate. They are about him and his life. His life happens to be continuously influenced by his disability - he can't walk, he can barely pick anything up, his tools to do something as simple as turn on faucets break every month, pretty much all he can do is type. But that's not an event, that's a life. Having a disability is not WP:BLP1E. We have plenty of articles about people notable strictly due to their disability, from Terry Wiles to Joseph Merrick to almost all the Category:People with gigantism, to ... no doubt everyone can think of many many others. Yes, those two articles about his life despite his disability by themselves would suffice for WP:GNG. But that's not all he's notable for. He's not WP:AVOIDVICTIM. He's not a victim, solely the face of his disability, he's very much his own man. He's notable for, despite his disability, and holding down two jobs, doing things that had nothing to do with his disability, namely founding 8chan, and being a prominent voice on GamerGate. He is the person that the Huffington Post and The David Pakman Show - major sources - went to for long interviews about it. Ryulong, who no doubt will be here soon to argue for deletion, wrote on the article talk page: "he's certainly no Helen Keller", and that's quite right. Helen Keller got most of her fame from her disabilities; Fredrick Brennan is getting fame for something that has nothing to do with his. --GRuban (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points; just a small clarification, I did not mention BLP1E in relation to his disability (which is hardly an "event"), but in relation to the thievery. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, the proposer's argument applies about as well to certain other figures connected to Gamergate whose pages have already survived AfD. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)— 76.64.35.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep or Merge with 8chan. I think I'll not rehash the fine points made by GRuban and others. I would like to include that if the DailyDot is considered a reliable source then the page more then meets the concerns held about it, as far as I understand policy that is. HessmixD (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a somewhat unusual BLP. I will also say that the substantial focus on disability is extremely professional and it reads like something of a fluff piece. Would also support a merge to 8chan if the weight of sourcing places matters exclusively on it. Taken alone, most of the matters mentioned in the article and the sources related to only human interest and "mentions" other than straight content pieces is a decent case for WP:BLP1E. All these smaller pieces combined and I think overall you end up with suitable notability. There's no specific one thing I can point to as being some kind of turning point nor exact guidelines I can quote, and some of the sourced articles aren't the best quality; I'd probably !vote a delete if it were restricted to 1-2, but this many? Yeah. Marginally notable + WP:BLP1E x even a bit more than 1 = WP:GNG enough for me. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this WP:SNOW yet? It's been more than 48 hours and there are several arguments to keep, none to delete yet besides the original proposal. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AFDs go on for a week minimum. And this is not a snow close yet as there is opposition to keeping as is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 8chan. Subject is not independently notable from the website he owns. Anything regarding his physical disability is not reason enough for separate coverage as it either regards the robbery he suffered or its a human interest story that isn't about him per say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ted_DeVita (aka "Bubble Boy") seems like a relevant comparison; he's notable for his illness and the movie he inspired The_Boy_in_the_Plastic_Bubble, wikipedia has articles on both. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC) — 107.15.41.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Agree with AldNon, minimal support for deletion, request has run it's course. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not mean anything. There's support for there not being an article. Just because it's minimal does not mean that WP:SNOW is to be applied here. AFDs are open for a week at minimum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "AFDs are open for a week at minimum." reads an awful lot like demanding process for the sake of process 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one know about {{tq}} so quickly? And all these policies and such. I have a feeling this debate is being brigaded now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because {{tq}} was used in a discussion in which I was involved here under a different IP address. Note the links I've left between the talk pages. See my other comment farther down the page for how I know about policies. I've been reading much longer than it may seem. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! And I am a proud, but lazy, member of the build-a-neutral-encyclopedia brigade. ☺ 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Bubble Boy" inspired media about his disease. Brennan has a couple of articles about being robbed, a human interest story about his disease, and everything else regards 8chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just close this AfD already.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 03:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be kept?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Man do I really need to parroting every word here? Fine! per Muscat Hoe comment.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with 8chan thriving despite obstacles or being robbed is not encyclopedic level of notability. if he does something other than 8chan that gets noted, then a spinout in the future would be possible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hat comments by confirmed socks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep Definately keep. --Torga (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argotton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Is that a way to welcome new users?. I am not an expert but is this not a breach on the WP:DNB rules?--Argotton (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're well versed in these rules for someone who claims to be new.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Your first and only edit was to this AfD. Either you are in fact not a new editor, or you were WP:CANVASSED, neither or which are particularly good. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone's "first and only edit" has to be somewhere. And are we really casting suspicion on new users on the basis that they can cite policy that explicitly requests giving those new users the benefit of the doubt? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone's first ever edit is to an AFD on a contentious subject then people are allowed to have their suspicions raised.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A first edit to an AfD and a second edit mentioning WP:DNB are not signs that a user is legitimately a newcomer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On a last note, that is like saying a person is supicious if they know the law to well for not being arrested before. --Argotton (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    More like: you get to a foreign country and immediately get involved in political debate and start quoting obscure laws, while claiming you had never set foot in said country beforehand. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not seem to need my vote clearly there is a huge majority here for keepin this article. So i can retract it if thats what people want. --Argotton (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a vote where a majority count decides things. Nothing on Wikipedia meets that description.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to withdraw your vote; I'm sure everyone would like to hear your reasoning to justify keeping. All you have to do is strike the !vote above, login your actual account, and post your rationale to the AfD in the way you're supposed to. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    this seems to be a battleground for something else that i clearly do not get. Good luck with whatever you people are doing. --Argotton (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Muscat Hoe is correct--this is gamergate politics spreading disruption elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I see it, Salvidrim! saw Ryulong arguing non-notability on the talk page and being challenged to open an AfD. When Ryulong complained that he "can't nominate it" because some people off-wiki would be mad, Salvidrim! helpfully made the nomination with a summary of Ryulong's argument about 8 minutes later. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing this and assuming that the proposal was originally Ryulong's idea, this AfD reeks of WP:DLS and a sort of petty revenge against the article subject, taking advantage of an uninvolved editor's assumptions of good faith. Aside from the nomination itself, almost every argument has been for keeping the article, except for Ryulong and TheRedPenofDoom, who seem to have come here from Gamergate controversy. I also note that Ryulong has also disputed the notability of 8chan, here proposed as a merge target. Given the recent history with that controversy, I see this as an attempt to censor perceived enemies from Wikipedia. I expect to be attacked for taking this position, but perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I had not initially noticed Deadbeef's signature and had misread his vote as part of the nomination. He seems to be a very active editor, mostly involved in various wikignome activities and has no apparent connection to the Gamergate controversy article. I apologize if I have accidentally cast aspersions on him. This doesn't change that almost every argument has been for keeping the article, but does give the people who seem to have come here from the Gamergate controversy some coincidental company and probably justifies the opposition to a WP:SNOW closure. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I do not believe Salvidrim! has done anything wrong. As an admin, he is expected to help push the community processes along, which he has done here. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can argue that a subject is not notable regardless of what you or others may think of my behavior. You're well learned in this fact and these terms despite your short tenure here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a dynamic IP address. I have had a number of dynamic IP addresses over the years that I have been involved off-and-on with Wikipedia. I have been here longer than it looks. I have remained an IP editor mostly due to laziness and not wanting to deal with yet another account. You can argue whatever you want, and I can cite the appearance of a hidden agenda that looks like a form of on-wiki deletion-as-revenge for something Brennan and his site 8chan have done off-wiki, namely that their commitment to freedom of speech has allowed GamerGate-ists to gather there. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that I mostly sent through this AfD based on Ryulong's arguments about its notability and I wished to "formally" submit them for community review in an AfD discussion, but I did not feel personally particularly strongly about deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could have made the first vote as "comment" or "abstain"? It would have prevented the confusion that led to people expecting a SNOW close earlier after misreading Deadbeef's vote as the nominator's vote. I know I made that mistake at first. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect - While this person's notoriety would be near-zero absent his hosting of a hive for both Gamergaters and other sundry networks, the NY Times and al Jazeera sources satisfy the project's general notability guideline. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose this person can be said to pass the GNG. That doesn't mean, of course, that an article should be written about them, and as long as the article is nothing but a rehashing of factoids that appear to be mentioned because they come up in a description of the person who founded that board, I would redirect it. But this is computergamergategamesanimemangainternetchanmaterial, so everything must be written up separately, apparently. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're both right. It passes GNG, and a redirect to the 8chan article is probably the best fit. Sigh......Jimbo and ArbCom have really screwed over this project lately. Not purposely, but still. Dave Dial (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to a redirect (added that above just now), but this is unfortunately the reality of our low-bar GNG, the "two sources == article" threshold. We have a hard enough time around here applying actual BLP1E, having to deal with the keep-anything inclusionsists...and woe for us if it a 1Event in a cultural topic area, e.g. the confluence of inclusionists and I-P POV warriors see to it that most every 1Event Jewish article is retained. Ideally, 8chan would have a sub-section for it's el jefe, and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing as the person who started the article, I need to repeat what I wrote on the article talk page. I personally have minimal interest in either 8chan or GamerGate, so would prefer you not imply I wrote the article because of those. I wrote the article because I saw a highly interesting personal story. That personal story is not synonymous with GamerGate; it's about a rather young man with a big hurdle to overcome who has despite that made a name for himself on the 'net in a short time. If I can find reliable sources, I'd love to add more about what I've found in less reliable ones - about how he grew up, and his Wizardchan days, and his other sites, for example. He's not just a facet of GamerGate, he's a person. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That personal story is a borderline level of notability when considered separately from his creation of 8chan. He is a reliable figure for his opinion on that but not a notable person just because he created a website and has a degenerative osteopathic disorder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's a Wikipedia:Notable person because multiple independent major news outlets wrote stories about and interviews with him, several of the stories quite indepth. That's called the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. He was interesting to me to write about because of what I wrote. Clearly he's not interesting to you, and that's all right, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the word notability has a very specific meaning in this discussion, and our personal opinions are not the governing factor here. Wikipedia:Notability is. --GRuban (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no wonder Gamergaters perceive a bias when of all the individuals involved in this brouhaha with wikipedia articles, you suggest the one who founded/runs a site with 35K visitors/day has done the least to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC those figures are fudged and if anything it shows that his website is notable rather than himself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a conspiracy to inflate the numbers. The more notable the website the less notable the founder? --107.15.41.141 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is I've seen conflicting data.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge – Brennan meets generally notability, which may escalate him to more prominence in the future, but because the 8chan article is relatively small, it would not hurt its readability if Brennan's info was merged into a small biographical section a la 4chan#Christopher Poole.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fredrick_Brennan&oldid=1151017746"