User:DennyColt/BrandtNotability

redo for pending AfD. Composing my reply/thoughts for afd that is coming in under one week on this article. please feel free to add sources but do not remove any content.

Please feel free to add more sources

 * Strong keep: The previous speedy deletion/DRV/RFaR mess was out of order as Daniel Brandt has clear notability. Below are news stories either about the subject Daniel Brandt or specifically citing him as a source in the piece (I checked each of these). The first section alone allows him to easily cruise past WP:BIO requirements. Based on his being notable I can't see any legitimate reason to delete at all. He's famous in his circles, and the entire world hears about him pracitically (note the international news coverage) often about privacy stuff. His private anti-wikipedian garbage is annoying from what I've read of it, but he's still notable. He is routinely cited by major news media (seen below) as authoratative source on a variety of privacy, search engine, Google, and internet privacy issues. By extension, if someone is so heavily gone-to as a voice and authority on a topic, by de facto he is notable because the media made him notable because of his own interaction with them. This seems to predate Siegenthaler, the Wikipedia feuds, etc., by some time. He exposed NSA/CIA spying on domestic citizens and got press for that (lots of press, world wide). More press still for his name base project. He got lots of lots of press and still does over his Google/SEO work (and still does, each month, as more media go to him). Unless Brandt completely stops talking to media forever this list will just grow each month, each year.

(Note: If I tagged a source as "Significant Brandt" it means he's mentioned in a solid number of paragraphs relative to length of article/source")

(Note: this section alone qualifies as multiple published non-trivial sources and allows him to coast by even stringent WP:BIO if I understand it correctly)
 * Sources specifically about Brandt and/or Brandt's work.
 * 1) Salon news, August 2002 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
 * 2) AlterNet, August 2002 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
 * 3) Counterpunch news, January 2003 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
 * 4) PC Magazine, June 2003 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
 * 5) Web Pro News, January 2005 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
 * 6) Linux Insider Magazine, December 2005 (Focuses on/is about Brandt)
 * 7) San Antonio Express News, December 2005 (Focuses on/is about Brandt) * (some have expressed concern it may not be RS, but that is debateable as of now)
 * 8) People's Daily China, December 2005 (specifically about Brandt/Brandt's work)
 * 9) Editor & Publisher, December 2005 (deleted from article, includes public commentary from Jimbo on Brandt/acknowledgements etc.)
 * 10) The Register, April, 2006 - page 2 (Partially about Brandt himself, about 1/3 to 1/4 of article)
 * 11) Quad City Times/AP, February 2007 (specifically about Brandt/Brandt's work)

Note that the Linux Insider story includes the passage, which says, "Unlike the Seigenthaler incident, Wales views Brandt as a notable public figure who just doesn't want to have his bio on Wikipedia."


 * Sources citing Brandt as an authority on his privacy matters, establishing him as notable thus (or indeterminate for that source, but still RS)
 * 1) United States v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1970)
 * 2) The Christian Science Monitor p. 8., July 1989. Thatcher, Gary. Cloak-and-Dagger Database: Software Sniffs Out Secret Agents.
 * 3) McCarthy, Jerry (January-March 1994). Mary Ferrell Profile. NameBase NewsLine, cited on Spartacus Educational
 * 4) CBS News, March 2002 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 5) Secrecy News, March 2002 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 6) The Guardian, September 2002 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 7) Wired news, January 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 8) ZDNet news, March 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 9) St. Petersburg Times, April 2003 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 10) Sydney Morning Herald, April 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 11) The Telegraph UK, October 2003 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 12) Heartland news, December 2003 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 13) Tech Review News, March 2004 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 14) The Register, March 2004 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 15) Daily Texas, April 2004 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 16) Sydney Morning Herald, January 2005 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 17) Web Pro News, January 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 18) Stepforth News, January 2005 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 19) Wired news, April 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 20) The Age.au, January 2005 (Significant Brandt/about his work, showing major RS view him as notable)
 * 21) ZDNet news, June 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 22) CNET News, June 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 23) The Guardian, October 2005 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 24) Journalism.org, October 2005
 * 25) USA Today, December 2005
 * 26) New York Times, December 2005
 * 27) ZDNet News, December 2005
 * 28) ABC News, December 2005
 * 29) Seattle Times, December 2005
 * 30) ZDNet news, December 2005
 * 31) Journalism.co.uk, December 2005
 * 32) Associated Press, December 2005
 * 33) CNN broadcast, December 2005
 * 34) Guardian Unlimted, December 2005
 * 35) Editor & Publisher, December 2005
 * 36) News Factor News, January 2006
 * 37) Washington Post, April 2006
 * 38) Info Sec News, April 2006
 * 39) Boston Herald, November 2006
 * 40) Burlington Free Press, February 2007 (includes at least one citation, section with Brandt, establishing him as an authority/notable expert on privacy)
 * 41) Concept, accessed March 2007 (Significant Brandt, showing major RS view him as notable)

I think that's sufficient. People can find more by simple Googling - this search took me 77 pages in before I quit. In conclusion, Brandt is a clearly public person--or else why would he 1) be cited in dozens of news stories; 2) have MAJOR news organizations talking about him for years; 3) have Jimbo Wales "views Brandt as a notable public figure who just doesn't want to have his bio on Wikipedia". WP:BLP doesn't apply for privacy reasons. It applies to Brandt no more or less than it applies for Ben Affleck. Are 47-50+ sources enough to meet WP:BIO for inclusion? do we need the article? Do we need one on Jimmy Wales who is only notable for creating Wikipedia et al and only gets continued press for being the founder/manager of wikipedia (thats sort of one-note, but nothing wrong with that, he's a nice guy)? Do we need one for every two bit porn star/D-list celebrity, every episode of every tv show ever, every last movie ever, every pokemon character, every notable thing ever? isn't that the point? I can appreciate the guy not wanting an article for any reason... he doesn't like it, he thinks its unfair, he thinks it an invasion of his privacy by existing (the apparent reason as I read it...), or because he feels like it that day. But he made himself notable, wikipedia didn't make him notable. He got more notable the more he fought, and the more attention he brought on himself by railing on and on. any circular increase in notability/notoriety he got, that I can tell from reading (good God, too many of these) articles and Wikipedia history is his own doing. he keeps at the media, he keeps at Wikipedia, not the other way around. we just documented it all it looks like, and he kept it up. chicken or the egg? Anyway, Wikipedia is supposed to be the Sum total of human knowledge...

So, strong keep. 1) For the simple fact he passes WP:BIO easily; 2) IARing to delete sets a horrible precedent. Anyone then who makes themselves famous, infamous, or notable by complaining loudest will get their way and have precedent from my understanding; 3) unless Brandt stops all his public activities (which is what they are) his notability each month/year will just grow, each time he does something or contributes as a recognized source. This list will just grow. 4) per #3, note he passes even the most stringent WP:BIO test but will only do so with ever-increasing ease over time. Therefore Strong Keep.