Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (11th nomination)


 * 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. No point in dragging it out, I guess the article is here to stay.  Majorly  ( Talk ) 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

 * — (View AfD)

OK this is probably quite controversial, as this particular article has been nominated 10 times before. But please, consider these points. Also, probably because of Wikipedia's popularity this article is first on a Google search. Please really consider your "vote", and don't "per" others here. I think this is a case where notability is irrelevant. I wish to end this silly battle once and for all with this, so the man can get on with his life.  Majorly  ( Talk ) 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article has strongly objected to there being an article about him.
 * He is forced to check it every day for libel, slander etc.
 * He has now been banned for trying to get the article removed.
 * He has made an anti-Wikipedia website, and is a regular poster on the Wikipedia review. Probably both in response to this article.


 * Keep, well known privacy advocate, despite the lack of privacy he affords other people, many references in the press, important in the John Seigenthaler controversy. We cannot delete articles merely because the subjects don't want them to be here.  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who says so? Is there a policy on this? -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I say so. This is my opinion, and my contribution to the discussion.  There is no policy one way or the other.  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Clearly notable. His objections are irrelevant to his notability. His checking for defamation every day is his choice. No other individual is allowed to remove his article because he doesn't like it that I'm aware of so don't start with this one. Otto4711 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Otto, just because something has not happened before doesn't mean it can never happen. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am aware of that. The reason why something has not happened before, however, may prove instructive in deciding whether allowing it to start should happen. You have no offered a compelling reason or really even a legitimate reason as to why Daniel Brandt should be allowed to dictate whether he has an article or not. He's notable. "Exceptional" case or not, he has an article and there is no reason why he shouldn't. If he doesn't like it, I'm sorry, but the proverbial genie is out of the metaphorical bottle and Mr Brandt doesn't get to stuff it back inside. Otto4711 18:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Incredibly strong keep not just because of the notability of the subject, but because the nominator does not provide any reason for requesting deletion. There is no rationale along time lines of "non-notable" or "does not pass WP:BIO" or "unsourced and unverified"- the subject not wanting an aritcle or the subject being attacked frequently are not reasons to eliminate an article. -- Kicking222 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, even if possible libelous comments are a problem (which, as far as possible deletion of the entire article is concerned, they are not), I'm sure there are (literally) dozens upon dozens of editors who have this article on their watchlists and check for updates regularly. -- Kicking222 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already stated that this should be an exceptional case. Whether he is notable or not doesn't matter. The point is, he doesn't want an article, and since he plans to sue it is probably better it was deleted. -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Majorly, your repeated commenting on everybody else's !vote will just start to annoy people and not help your cause. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete until notability is asserted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per my own belief that, only in cases where notability is borderline or marginal, article subjects should be allowed to request deletion of their own article. Yes, I know that isn't policy, but it ought to be. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; would we delete David Irving if he asked us? Public figures are public figures, and they should not be able to get their (non-attack, non-libelous) Wikipedia article deleted just by asking. Does he check the rest of the web for libelous content? How about Slashdot or any other major news/blog/whatever that allows public posting?--Prosfilaes 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. If Shaquille O'Neal doesn't want an article on him, we won't deleted it; if someone puts in an unsourced statement saying "Shaq is a jerk," it'll be removed. -- Kicking222 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thing is, kicking, has Shaquille O'Neal asked for the article to be deleted? -- Majorly  ( Talk ) 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. In English, that "If ..., ..." structure is often used for statements where the clause that immediately follows the if is not currently true.--Prosfilaes 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Irving was not a random choice; the statements we make on that article, like denoting him a racist, are not nice, even if they are well-sourced.--Prosfilaes 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. None of the reasons cited are in the deletion policy, and an individual AfD is not the place to debate major policy changes.  Those belong on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notable enough and the consensus is in favour. What I oppose is this afd, plenty of us check this article daily for libel etc not just Brandt, though dont know why he bothers as due to his own behaviour he is banned from editing. If George W. Bush wanted his article removing would we do that too. Brandt is internationally notable and far too important to consider having no article about him. 10 times is a mockery of our processes, as is the timing when many regular editors are on holiday and this page should be speedied, SqueakBox 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Is it that time again, already? Let's see: he's still notable, and his desire to remove it still doesn't count. He has a right to demand that content be accurate and verifiable. He doesn't have the right to demand it be removed. Fan-1967 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject of a biography does not determine if he belongs here or not. Libel issues need concrete examples. Diffs please? It's not like we just ignore if someone finds something libel. Also he is a known critic of Google and not just us. he is free to get on with his life, in fact I think both we and Google would appreciate that very much.MartinDK 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't agree with most of Majorly's arguments, which seem to play on our sympathy for Brandt. There's too little of that around here to go very far. Nor do I agree that Brandt is non-notable. He's made himself notable by his activities. I urge that this article be deleted simply because it is disruptive to the project. We don't need to have it, and it has directly and indirectly caused grief to many editors. Perhaps WP:DENY can be invoked, or even WP:IAR. The end effect is that having this article does not, on the whole, help this project. -Will Beback · † · 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, IMO, deleting this article would mean effectively allowing an outsider to dictate content, an absolutely unacceptable precedent. Fan-1967 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO, this is a horrible attitude! Wikipedia is a free and open project that anyone and everyone has a chance to add to or edit. There are NO 'outsiders'. It is probably the most un-wikipedic thing I have ever heard/read from an established editor.  You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself! -- Brian ( view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true, Brandt is banned from editing, SqueakBox 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.