Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch


 * 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   no consensus. Tarc and The Devil's Advocate have made good cases for their opposing positions, but apart from a weak delete and a merge opinion, all other contributions appear rather shallow in terms of policy-based reasoning. So we have no consensus. I recommend reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed.  Sandstein  18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Brutsch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This should be a textbook WP:BLP1E; a previously anonymous, private citizen suddenly thrust into the spotlight because he was "outed" for doing controversial things on a web page. Please note that "but I read it in many reliable sources!" is not an effective counter-argument to a person only notable for one event; we accept the "notable" part of the argument, that's not in dispute. BLP1E revolves around 1) "is the subject for only known for one thing?", 2) "absent this one thing would this person be unknown?", and 3) "going forward, is the subject likely to remain low-profile?" IMO 1 and 2 are slam-dunk, while 3 is quite probable.  Yes, people caught up in one-event cases will give interviews in the immediate aftermath, but that's really not enough to address this criteria.  You would need to see a sustained campaign of spotlight-chasing that keeps the person in the headlines.  An example of that would be Sandra Fluke, who has now passed the threshold of notability beyond the initial one-event Rush Limbaugh dust-up.  This guy isn't that, and since his livelihood has essentially been destroyed by publicity, I'd say he is unlikely to chase it anytime soon, if ever. This case is more like the girl who was spanked by her father; a news frenzy, then gone. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep However I would prefer it to be either merged with Reddit or renamed/spun out into an article covering the event as per my comments on the talk page. However if neither of those gain any traction, keep rather than delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, clear BLP1E. This merits nothing more than a paragraph in the Reddit article. § FreeRangeFrog 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Tarc did not even notify me of this discussion, though he is obviously aware that I am the primary author. I am not even finished with the article and I have already rebutted the BLP1E argument twice, once in the edit summary creating the article and a second time on the talk page. Simply put, he is notable for many events. The jailbait subreddit that he created was a significant event a year ago and got him some direct mentions. His outing is because of his involvement in yet another subreddit that drew significant media attention and the subsequent outing that has received considerable contextual coverage, which I am planning to add today. Any suggestion that a person who sought out an interview with a primetime national news program is "low-profile" is a ridiculous misreading of BLP1E. Any merge or rename would be misguided as there is not just one event and it would be coatracky to merge to any other article. Nominating an article for deletion that is clearly listed as still being under construction is disruptive and borders on uncivil. Please withdraw your nomination Tarc.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is only one event of note; the outing and aftermath (i.e. fired from his job). A blip a year ago about the jailbait sub-reddit had nothing to do with "Michael Brutsch" at the time, since that name was unknown to the public.  You can't connect the recent events with something he once did anonymously and say "two events", it don't work like that.  This nomination is on solid ground and it will go forward.  As for notifications, don't take it personal; I never notify anyone individually when I nominate something for deletion.  Interested parties are responsible for getting themselves to an AfD. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does work like that. Notability for doing something under an alias is no different from notability for doing something under one's own name. These are two major news events in the past year where he has played a significant role. WP:BLP1E does not apply to him, even if he didn't do an interview with CNN.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you can keep wishing that it does, but wishing doesn't make a falsehood become true. The previous non-event was more about reddit in general anyways, and not Mr. Brutsch in particular.  The "two-event" argument isn't going to win the day here. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not a "non-event" when the jailbait subreddit was covered. CNN did a report on it and so did several other major press sources. On its own that would not be enough for an article on even the jailbait subreddit, let alone violentacrez, but that was not the only event where he played a significant role. This recent incident actually began because violentacrez was involved with the creepshots subreddit that was also getting significant press coverage. His outing is just another event in addition to that one. He is notable for his involvement in numerous controversial subreddits over the past year and being outed because of his connection with them, not because of any singular event. This is not a "two-event" argument, but a "multiple-event" argument with at least two significant events in the mix where he has been noted by reliable sources as a significant player.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Devil's Advocate seems to think that someone being notable on Reddit is the same as being notable elsewhere, which I think is obvious given his mention of "other subreddits" and so on. The question here is whether or not the external coverage of the issue and the person merit inclusion under the notability guidelines, and as far as I can tell that's not the case. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about every person involved in a controversy that was interviewed by CNN. This whole thing seemed like a huge deal on Reddit at the time (and like other people I watched it unfold), but it's just another case of some minor localized and already fading notoriety that does not merit a full BLP. Like I said in my !vote, I suggest this be condensed and turned into a redirect to Reddit. § FreeRangeFrog 18:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying being notable on Reddit is the same as being notable elsewhere. This ain't my first rodeo. The sources I have already provided in the article are major national news sources from multiple countries and I am not even finished with the article. To suggest that I am saying being notable on Reddit is enough is completely absurd. It is the external coverage that informed my decision to create the article, not Reddit coverage. Honestly, I don't even use Reddit.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please link to a definition of "subreddit," an odd neologism. Not everyone here follows Reddit. Is it anything like a sub sandwich? Edison (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, well I do not follow Reddit either, but it is pretty basic stuff. Subreddits are just sections of the site devoted to a certain type of content.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - what the nom said. --Vrave98 (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The nom is completely wrong on every point as I have already demonstrated. It is not one event for which he is notable, but multiple events over a year. People who seek interviews with CNN are also not "low-profile" in even the most charitable interpretation of the term and so BLP1E does not apply in that respect.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That they constitute multiple events is your opinion. It would be wise for you to not snipe at each and every person here who holds a different opinion on the matter. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You and Frog responded to my comments above so don't talk to me about "sniping" at every person. It is not a matter of "opinion" that they constitute multiple events. How is something that happened a year ago centering on something he created not a separate significant event for which he is known?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment So everyone is clear about this, violentacrez/Michael Brutsch has been involved in multiple events that have gotten media attention, including several that have gotten considerable media attention. He created and moderated a section called jailbait, which at one point was the second-biggest search term for Reddit. That section, or subreddit, was the subject of a major report by Anderson Cooper on CNN and was also covered by International Business Times, DailyTech, NBC News, and The Washington Times. The Daily Dot also reported on the subreddit at the time, noting violentacrez was the creator and moderator of the section. Prior to that he was actually involved in another instance regarding a subreddit called r/beatingwomen. What we have most recently is violentacrez/Brutsch being a moderator for a subreddit called creepshots that has gotten a lot of significant coverage (see here:    ). It is because of his involvement in multiple controversial subreddits that he was subsequently outed and that outing has been the subject of considerable coverage as well. He is not only known for a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't get to nitpick involvement in multiple website sub-fora and call those events, that is extremely disingenuous. This person was outed for his controversial reddit tenure, that is how one looks at this properly and truthfully.  Simply being an ass on a website is not an event; this person did not become notable to reliable sources until he was outed and subsequently fired.  THAT is the event.  Period, full-stop. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who is "an ass on a website" gets named as the most important person that year on the same website by The Daily Dot. That was a year before this recent kerfuffle happened. Oh, hey, look what I just found. Another event that got noteworthy coverage earlier this year (See here:    ) where violentacrez was a significant player by revealing a list of sites that were being banned from Reddit. Are you going to concede the BLP1E objection now?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest, as now you're just googling for "violentacrez" and tallying up the name-drops, not in-depth coverage of the user himself, I'm afraid. There's a wiki-essay for this sort of blood-from-a-stone source-squeezing you're doing right now, but the name escapes me at the moment. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Those sources demonstrate that BLP1E doesn't apply in the slightest. If I were only using the r/jailbait and r/beatingwomen coverage from a year ago and the sources in that comment above to argue for keeping the article you would have a stellar point, but this is all in addition to the significant, in-depth coverage he has gotten over the past month that has delved into many details of his life off of Reddit.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will also note that you completely ignored the point about him being named the most important person on Reddit last year by The Daily Dot.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How about we move this to, um, I suppose, /r/jailbait (if that's a valid article title?), and then make it not a biography any more? Morwen (Talk) 13:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not just about r/jailbait just like it is not just about the outing. He has got press attention over the past year for his involvement in three separate controversial subreddits, his outing, and for another matter involving Reddit. All of these together justify having a BLP.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak delete I don't buy the argument that his notoriety as violentacrez somehow doesn't count because he wasn't then known as Michael Brutsch - it's the same person, why shouldn't it count? (And definitely those prior controversies are separate events, not some strange extensions of this one event...) The problem I have is that other than The Daily Dot, nobody outside Reddit seems to have really paid violentacrez that much attention before this latest event; the jailbait subreddit and other controversies he was connected with received third-party coverage, yes, but coverage of violentacrez's role seems to have been limited to that one source, which doesn't really satisfy me. Absent that, we're left with BLP1E concerns (though it's not clear if he's low-profile enough for BLP1E to apply...) If somebody can produce non-Daily-Dot coverage of violentacrez's role in those prior controversies that predates this latest explosion I'll support keeping. Sideways713 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I managed to locate an article in Gawker that made a noteworthy mention of him at that time. Technically Anderson Cooper made a brief mention of violentacrez, but I haven't brought it up because it wasn't that significant. You should also see the material I just added.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I would have deleted this article, were it not for the final comment by The Devil's Advocate, and subsequent improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wifone, the problem is that TDA continuously misrepresents the sources cited, as they invariably turn out to be coverage of reddit's problems and scandals with a mere name-drop of this preson's online alias. In the gawker link above, "violentacrez" is mentioned in once sentence ("...and Violentacrez—a 50-something Texas software engineer who openly brags about having oral sex with his 19-year-old step-daughter...").  18 words out of an 860-word article.  As with the others, this source establishes notability of the scandal, but not this particular person. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Reddit and eliminate the BLP material. The main article has a tiny section on subreddit controveries, of which this seems to be the only example with significant coverage. This is another case of one person's pseudo-notability as an exemplar of a whole class, simply because he was picked by some media outlet as a frame for the story. It's clear that there's no significant bio to be found, beyond this incident. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't as simple as him being an "exemplar" or "frame" for the story. He is, in fact, the most notable personality on Reddit. None of the other Reddit users connected with these controversial subreddits got nearly as much attention prior to the outing and his outing was because of his prominent role in those subreddits.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Some more substantive coverage of Brutsch and his outing: . I suspect such coverage will persist well beyond the initial news cycle because he has played such a notable role in the controversial subreddits and because his outing was a rather significant event as well.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A significant single event, yep. I think it's time to put this baby to bed here. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have three distinct events over a year where Violantacrez/Michael Brutsch played a central role that was discussed by multiple sources. Two of those events are clearly significant given substantial coverage in national news. His outing is just the most significant event. I am noting the persisting coverage as it pertains to another aspect of WP:BLP1E. One of the other criteria for a valid BLP1E objection is if it "is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" and part of determining significance is persistent coverage. I believe the event of his outing will, on its own, be cited many times in the future with him noted significantly in connection with it and that the source I provided is an indication in favor of my view.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no distinct events. We have an overall story of reddit's notorious history, that is a thing in itself.  We then have a man at the center of that who was outed.  You can't lie and glue those two together to call it "two events".  Seriously, go find something better to do than to use the Wikipedia to smear a living person.  Even distasteful people who do distasteful things, as we can all agree Mr. Brutsch did do, do not deserve to have their life paraded and scrutinized by anonymous, amateur encyclopedia writers. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple events, not just one nor even just two. Just because you believe the other events aren't significant doesn't change the facts as supported by reliable sources. Also, I am not interested in smearing the man. My interest is in writing a neutral biographical article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no multiple events, no matter how much blood you squeeze from the stones that are sources covering reddit, and not this person. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep BLP1E obviously does not apply, as shown by Devil's Advocate. I found violentacrez outing despicable, but it is all over the place at this point anyway, so there are no privacy concerns to be worried about. Cycl o pia talk  00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And empty vote by a contribution stalker following me from the pedophile DRV, doing a WP:PERNOM of a point (BLP1E) long refuted. Discard this non-vote and hopefully head for a wrap-up soon, please. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalker? What the hell are you talking about? Tarc, pull yourself together please. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, it must be an amazing coincidence that a post by you replying to me at DRV is followed by a post here in an AfD I initiated ~45 mins later. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not coincidence, but it's not stalking. Peeking into the contributions of people I interact with (something I do with basically every editor) and happening to find something that interested me is not "stalking". I see that you just posted another AfD -do you see me commenting there? Do you see me wikihounding you elsewhere? I don't think so. I don't even have your talk page in my watchlist. I understand you "have an image to uphold as a dick", as you yourself say on your userpage, but at least do it with some class. C'mon. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:46, 21 November 2012 (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.