Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer


 * 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 DELETE.

For its size, this debate is astonishingly good-humoured. Clearly, for me to write a closure that deals with each editor's comments individually is impractical, and would not be useful. Nevertheless, it seems apparent from reading this (yes, I did) that those who would delete really do have things on their side. SlimVirgin's points are easily the best argued reason for keeping, but many of those arguing to keep use, for the most part, arguments that really are just weak. Those who say "we keep sexual perversions and Pokemon" are certainly the weakest: as ever, those points belong in other debates and are not very useful in dealing with this article since they are referencing unrelated topics. Several other "keep" interpretations are successfully rebutted: Jayjg's and Yamaguchi's (the latter urging us to keep based on his/her personal speculations), Zer0faults's, and the key parts of DyslexicEditor's; various editors cite these also. Mackensen appears to be making an obscure point about trolls, and anyway relies on a rebutted argument. Perhaps he means that we should keep it to prove to the more trollish parts of the world that we are able to turn their work against them, but we don't need to prove that to them: we have 1,000,000 articles to show them. Stephen B Streater's is almost self-contradictory and the later editor who relies on it equally so. Dread Lord Cyberskull seems to comment solely on the nomination, rather than taking account of all the editors who went before him. (There are various phrasings of most of these.)

Some of the delete arguments are weak too, though, most particularly that the article is associated with "disruption". SlimVirgin makes a point to Blnguyen that we have many articles about people to which things have happened, and that is an important statement. But the various characterisations as a storm in a teacup, a minor incident, self-referentiality, news reportage are signally unrebutted by anyone; noone even seems to make an attempt to disagree with them. Even, (dare I say it) the (non-)notability of the individual isn't really contested, with no impugning of Phil Sandifer intended. The point in response to DavidGerard's comment is important. If this topic has made multiple headlines (it is unreasonable to use a continuous tense here) in a month, say, then perhaps we can reconsider. In the meantime, if Wikimedia needs to report on this at all, is just down the road. Also observe that there remains the possibility of adding part of a sentence in generic terms to some more-obviously useful article about real-life harassment of project volunteers.

Now, I suppose I am about to outrage approximately 41 people, but really I don't think there's a lot of value in a Deletion review at this moment, unless someone really thinks I have this totally wrong and that it needs to be fixed urgently. It got speedied and restored repeatedly (in a rather poor manner), has been through DRV and had probably the most comprehensive, blood-free AfD of any article ever, and trying to turn the handle again right now is unlikely to achieve anything much. I'm not trying to appoint myself as the Final Authority, but the avenues are largely exhausted until such time as something about this shifts so significantly that a large proportion of 108-ish people have their minds changed.

Finally, a procedural note. I didn't participate here, but have followed the debate with interest. I did, some days ago, reverse an early closure of the debate, a course of action supported on the talk page. I don't think that re-opening a debate that (evidently) had reasonable mileage left in it leaves me with a conflict of interest, particularly as I have not otherwise joined the discussion; it was more interesting to follow it as it progressed and weigh the arguments. If you got this far, thank you for reading. -Splash talk 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer
Concerns over notability and surrounding disruption. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC) *Delete, very interesting story, but not encylopedic...yet anyway. I once reported to police on a story I stumbled across at a poetry site by an alleged ex-con just out of prison who gave horrible graphic details on what he was going to do to the woman who landed him in prison, including her name, her town, and the date he intended to murder her (just a few days hence from my reading). Phil's story is a bit more mild, but I can see why police might be concerned enough to check it out. On the other hand, Phil also seems to be the victim of harrassment. At any rate, fascinating as it is, it's not encyclopedic. -- M P er el ( talk 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; mentioned in the news, but not otherwise notable. - Liberatore(T) 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, one story in a local newspaper doesnt make you notable (no offense to Phil). --Rory096 18:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is a published author, he has been written about by a notable writer, and the incident highlights important concerns regarding academic freedom. Story appears to be growing in notoriety. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal The subject is barely a published author - based on the works referenced in the wikipedia article, he has written two short articles for an obscure online-only webcomics studies website plus he is co-author of a short 4 paragraph response to someone else's article about comics. The subject has been barely written about by a marginally notable writer - Cory Doctorow writes two brief posts about the police/snuff stories/wikipedia incident on the boingboing blog, which publishes 5-8 new posts or so a day (this might have taken Doctorow perhaps 5 minutes total for both posts); the incident is a very localized and obscure example of thousands and thousands thousands of incidents that are related to issues of academic freedom or freedom of creativity. Bwithh 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete One mention in a local paper about cops asking a guy questions. Oh no the sky is falling!  Wikipedia is not wikinews.  Also, something being on DRV and AFD at the same time is beyond retarded. Kotepho 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the "quality" of the article isn't relevant: we can establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sandifer is a graduate student, that he was mentioned for this harrassment in boingboing, etc. But this doesn't meet the "average professor" test, let alone exceed it--a long-canonical example of the biographical notability requirement. We do not need to use Wikipedia to "highlight important concerns regarding academic freedom" or participate in any other crusades, no matter how worthy we think they are. Demi T/C 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a non-story and not sure why anyone would care. But also a decent article backed up by a news source. -- JJay 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I've had a hard time deciding on this, but I just am not convinced he meets WP:BIO without considerable bending of the current language. I'm sorry if people see this as wonk-ish of me to vote delete after all this, hopefully my actions in the DRV weren't hopelessly incomprehensible. --W.marsh 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disruption is not the same as "things I dislike". &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Demi. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete fails the professor test. RN 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is not only about overzealous police, since this (allegedly) started with just an email to Bernie Machen, the University of Florida's president. That makes it a pretty astonishing case of successfully manipulating the president/police to accomplish someone's goal of harassment. Gnewf 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and casually wonder why we're talking about it here AND at DRV, failing WP:BIO. This is just a minor news story.  Friday (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Demi and Kotepho. Being notable to Wikipedians is not the same as being notable in general.  Disagree w/JayG that this is a significant issue of academic freedom.  We can wait until Phil gets his doctorate and publishes a crime novel, *then* he'll be notable.  (Cheers, Phil!)  MilesVorkosigan 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, changing my mind, if Daniel Brandt is considered notable as an anti-Wikipedia activist, then Philip Sandifer is at least as notable as the victim of these activists, particularly since this case is receiving notable attention from Cory Doctorow and UK journalists. -- M P er el ( talk 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the primary claim to notability is Brandt's involvement, then wouldn't a brief summary at Daniel Brandt suffice? Is the Sandifer incident substantial enough to warrant its own page? ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, great admin, not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, after arguing against the speedy deletion of this article (which I believed to be out of process), I now switch gears and vote to delete this article properly and within process. He's a favourite target of WR trolls and was harassed by the police because they succeeded in complaining about him. In my opinion, his biographical details and what happened to him doesn't make him notable enough to warrant an article. I'd like to note that I greatly respect Phil and think he is very notable within Wikipedia, but I don't think he's notable outside of it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable person or a notable incident. Wikipedia is neither a local newspaper nor a provincial outpost of Indymedia. Bwithh 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayjg. Passes the Wikitruth test. Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What Wikitruth test? Wikitruth has articles on several admins, we don't have articles on them here... --Rory096 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I originally was gonig to vote delete but then came across about 300+ articles on google talking about the situation and subject. It creates an odd situation when we as Wikipedians need to vote how notable someone we already know is. Oddly enough perhaps while he shouldn't be notable, his presence as a Wikipedia Admin is causing it to spread quickly on the internet. I think people should step back perhaps and not view this as a fellow admin, but as a person on the net that now has over 300+ articles written about not only his comics but also now this police involvement and judge it from there. Notability sometimes derives from infamy. --Zer0faults 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? --Rory096 19:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't say just news stories. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh come ON. 400 Google hits is not notable. --Rory096 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Around 12000 Google hits for "Phil Sandifer". Don't know how many of those are Philip (some certainly are). Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Try that again. --Rory096 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't think 400 Google hits is notable, you should be talking to Zer0faults, not me. I was just pointing out where he probably got the "over 300+ articles" figure.  (I, as noted below, don't think notability is a useful criterion.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you or Zer0faults actually read through your supposed 400+ google search results - even just the first couple of pages to check the names? There is more than one "Philip Sandifer" - There are multiple hits for a healthcare executive, a farmer, a transportation engineer and a "hotshot truck driver" character in a 1950s movie ("Daddy-O"), which seems to have the lion's share of hits. Furthermore, many or most of the hits for the Philip Sandifer we're actually talking about appear to be his postings to things like forums, amazon.com, or email listservs Bwithh 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment The above comment of mine refers to the search for "Phil Sandifier" made by Jayjg and Rory96. "Philip Sandifier" turns up a better search result but there are are many hits for a Christian musician of the same name and also there are numerous hits of the forum/email kind Bwithh 23:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And my comment quite clearly stated "Don't know how many of those are Philip (some certainly are)". Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of google results is misleading in this instance. For example, searching for my name in quotes brings up 2,950 results, and it's all about me, but I'm not notable enough for Wikipedia. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn outside of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete If this weren't about a wikipedian, there would be no question regarding non-notability. "Grad student harassed by cops, makes local paper" -- that description fits several thousand people, maybe tens of thousands, considering how vocally politically active grad students can be.  I think the speedy was a close call, but valid.  I don't even think this should be here. Xoloz 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Its a good verifiable article. No good reason to delete it. The bellman 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-notable but well-sourced and written in an encyclopedic fashion (which is to say, in time-neutral prose, organized under a topical name).  Wikipedia cannot be harmed by keeping this article, it can only benefit: look at the end goal of the project. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. Gamaliel 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete failes WP:BIO. The only test relevent is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)".  One event with little coverage doesn't measure up.   --Rob 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - he's borderline. If deleted, it shouldn't preclude recreating the article should notability increase - the story is still live and may achieve greater prominence. And academics specialising in comics aren't that common either. Also, I think with the number of people who will be watching it, it'll stay written and referenced to a good standard - David Gerard 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles are never barred from recreation if they're not the same thing as the deleted material. Everybody reads G4 wrong. --Rory096 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They are common enough that every PhD candidate in the subject isn't inherently notable. Gamaliel 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Fred Bauder 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I think there's juuuust not enough notability to have an article on the subject. I agree with David Gerard that recreation is a definite future possibility (not that the article cannot be recreated anyway, just that I think it should be in the future if further notoriety is asserted), but as of now, I don't think Sandifer is sufficiently significant. -- Kicking222 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable with his own work for inclusion (or else every professor at my undistinguished alma mater is, too). Though he is currently in the media, it's not for his own notability but rather as an example of someone affected by this sort of situation; I don't think this justifies an article yet. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We should probably be deleting Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar and similar articles then, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably; that VfD was terrible. People were marking their nonvotes as keep, even though they were saying rename or merge. The true result was probably a merge into a broader article. --Rory096 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about that one to say, which is why I didn't bother commenting on it; however, I do think I have a fair picture of this one. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Adam Bishop 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: The slate was wiped clean when the article was transferred?  That's good in a way, because here I will say the thing that really bothers me about the article before I offer up the Wikipedia-reason.  Stalkers are out for power.  They are like rapists, in that what they want is to own the person they're bothering.  Having an article about the effects of the stalker's actions would be nothing but sheer joy and reward for the person who wrote the U of F president.  Let's not give the arsonist the pleasure of watching the fire.  As for the deletion guideline reason, it's pretty simple: charges and allegations are not notability/fame.  Phil was accused of being a bad person, and that caused a tempest in a teapot.  It is illustrative, and it is interesting, and the article was well written, but it doesn't rise to encyclopedic level.  Were Phil kicked out of his program or arrested, then he would become a cause.  Essentially, the question is whether this goes beyond the local (and web local ... meaning us) to the regional and whether it represents a new offense or a reiteration of an old one.  To me, it does not rise to the level of encyclopedic yet, and we should be happy that it doesn't.  Geogre 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Geogre, we don't know who did this to Phil, so I'm speculating, but my guess is that they're not at all happy with this article, because what they did has backfired, in that they didn't harm Phil at all (the reverse, if anything), and it may backfire even more if this lawyer gets hold of the records. So although I agree with your arsonist reasoning in general, I don't think it applies in this case. In any event, we shouldn't create or delete articles with that kind of thing in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the votes below is to move to namespace and preserve it in the accounts of stalking. I understand that Phil could have offended folks with some other activity, that it might not have been Wikipedia related, but it seems to me that we only know about this incident because we're Wikipedians and so is he.  I.e. I doubt any of us would have encountered the story through the Florida papers.  In my own day, we had a director of composition who was having sex in his office during office hours with a 19 year old student while going through a divorce and had advertised for "bi-curious females" to have a threesome and video session with, and his ex-wife leaked all this to the press.  It raised a whole raft of interesting ethical and academic questions, and it ran in the newspapers (three of them) for 2 months and made a mention in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Then he got caught double billing the U. and got fired.  No one remembers this now, except those there at the time.  My point is that my U. refused to act on personal actions and free expression to terminate this guy, so the U. failed to really create news.  It was juicy, and it was racy, but the measure of it is after the events have concluded.  If we preserved this in a namespace 'tales of stalking' or 'how to save yourself' file, it would be cool.  Geogre 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The situation was written about by Cory Doctorow, a well-known writer, and The Gainsville Sun, which means we have reliable third-party sources, and it's an interesting story. Just as we shouldn't keep the article because it's about a Wikipedian, nor should we delete it for that reason, and it seems that's at least in part what's happening here. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think it would be wise to strike a better balance between the conflicting ethics of having this article in existence on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keepper SlimVirgin. Hugh G. Rection 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: a minor news story, also, per Geogre. --Hetar 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, recentism. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, minor news story. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep', We keep less notable stuff than this. Plus it's a well written article - not a stub.--God Ω War 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per KusmaRicDod 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, ephemeral news story of limited impact. If the world later comes to see the 2006 Sandifer investigations as a watershed event in law enforcement/Internet relations, we can write about it then. FreplySpang 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an interesting and well written article, documented in an encyclopedic fashion, fulfilling the very goal of this project.  The strongest argument that I can make to retain this article for now is this: as this is blogged about more and more, the number of relevant Google hits will increase exponentially over the next few weeks.  Close this discussion and come back to it one month from now.  Yamaguchi先生 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as wikipedia isn't a source for any information. This person is not notable, the whole surrounding story isn't notable, and should be deleted as such. If he is famous in a few months, that's fine, but as of now he isn't! Bjelleklang -  talk 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bjelleklang and WP:BIO. Crum375 22:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Rory096, FreplySpang, Mindspillage, Demi, and Zoe.--Sean Black 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rob. Pecher Talk 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin. I would support though renaming this  I am Ready to Serve my Country , since that is what the article is actually about. --Lambiam Talk 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia space and/or merge with something about Wikistalking. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete looks more like a news article than a bio of a notable individual, even though the guy has my sympathies. The info in the article, however, is a great example of cyber-stalking or wikipedia-stalking and could easily be included or merged into other such articles.  Ande B 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable because of what happened. There is precident based on the news stories.  This is a notable free speach issue, so I support it's inclusion as a Wikipedia page, and I would support a Wikipedia page about my IRL identity if I was in the news (I use a pseudonym.)--Nick Dillinger 23:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable article instigated by harassment and manufactured controversy ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anetode Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO and violates WP:POINT.--Peta 00:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Hahnch e  n 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. One news article and a bunch of blog entries does not make a subject notable. Try again when there's some media coverage of the anti-Wikipedia angle. Otherwise, it's self-referential. Fagstein 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Really. It is. Subject and incident both. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rory. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN, however interesting.--Ezeu 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Wikipedia only decribes notable things; it does not generate notability. Therefore, being notable only on Wikipedia doesn't make this person noteworthy in the real world. Reyk  YO!  03:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fails professor test. I have at one point or another had way more google hits than Phil currently does using the same search criteria/setting and I am definitely not notable. Userify or delete  + + Lar: t/c 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: No valid reason stated to delete. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 05:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable grad student; not notable incident. Totally unencyclopedic. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-referential wikipediacruft. This would never have had a chance here if it weren't for the WP connection. There are far more important academics, full professors at prestigious universities with several published books, who just barely survive AfD. up+land 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, more notable than Air Force Amy, and a hell of a lot more verifiable. — May. 27, '06 [09:04] < [ freak]|[ talk] >
 * ...and let's not forget Sophia Yan, and zOMG, Seth Ravin  . — May. 28, '06 [12:17] < [ freak]|[ talk] >
 * I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make. Phil is more notable than a girl that has played at Carneige Hall, has won many music competitions, has a New York Times article--because she gets less googles?  Kotepho 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin. This story has been published and is intersting by itself. Strong Keep. Zeq 09:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Simetrical. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep barely passes on media notability for the incident (no offense phil but your barely notable.)  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: This seems to be a petty minor story about nothing. The article is implying a potential case of  sub judice here anyway.  If the case escalates in the media when the files are released (or not) and a legal test case arises then Sandifer may possibly be deemed notable, at the moment he is not.  A few google hits does not make some-one notable. if this was the case we would have articles on every plumber and cowboy-builder  in London. Giano | talk 11:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The person is notable within Wikipedia but not outside. The story at this stage is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If the circumstances change, we can then create an article. Capitalistroadster 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A storm in a teacup.  Campus police question people quite often, and this was only regarded as a big deal because of the extreme pettiness of the complaint and Phil's Wikipedia connections.  For internal Wikipedia purposes, there is adequate documentation of the matter on the archives of the Wikien-L mailing list. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject matter here is definitely noteable, and exceeds our standards for verifiability.  It bothers me to think that some of those interested in seeing this deleted are somehow biased due to his relationship with Wikipedia.  If we can carry a page for Angela Beesley then I see no problem with this either.  Silensor 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Angela Beesley is on the Board of Trustees of an organization managing a Top 20 website. Phil Sandifer is a janitor on a Top 20 website.  If you want to argue the notability of the legal issues, fine, but comparing Phil to Angela is fruitless.  Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and I respect that, but in my mind this article is far more interesting and far more noteworthy. My argument stands.  Silensor 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 17:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly non-notable. If an incident on this scale had happened to some anonymous webmaster for another major website, we probably wouldn't keep the article in question either. Perhaps an article on the incident, or on anti-Wikipedianism in general, would merit keeping, but not one on Mr. Sandifer as things stand. Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, actually clearly notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, I knew about him from several places before seeing this aricle digital_m  e ( t / c ) 19:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're sure that place wasn't actually on Wikipedia, right? --Rory096 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hope and expect he'll be sufficiently notable for his scholarship someday, but right now, he's just an admin who some asshole unsuccessfully set up for harassment. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Geogre. Not (yet) notable; fails WP:BIO. &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletenn, but figure out a way to stop this dam off wiki harassment by a bunch of spineless little mamas boys.--MONGO 22:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN outside of wikipedia --rogerd 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete certainly doesn't meet the notability standard as an academic or author. and an article about some guy being interviewed by campus police, with no further action, is hardly encyclopedic.  Derex 01:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * delete Where is the OFFICE when we need it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to self-reference and notability. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I tend to have low notability standards, they are not quite this low. Paul August &#9742; 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn.  Grue   08:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Were this not an article about someone who edits wikipedia, there would be no need for debate, it would be a simple delete per WP:BLP. We certainly should not relax our biography standards simply because the subject edits wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - While the subject of the article might be notable to Wikipedia (and the events outlined therein are worrying indeed) I don't think the article establishes notability sufficiently enough to be kept. - Mark 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No articles link to Philip Sandifer, and I can't think which would except lists. That for me is more damning for an article than failure to meet guidelines. No-one's going to read this article unless they're part of the editing community or the, ahem, retired editing community. Keeping such an article would be pretty self-centred. Yes, I know the way the discussion is going, but I find some of the keep reasonings rather baffling. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because a single event surrounding a person may be notable to include in another article, that does not mean that an article about that person is needed or wanted. --mav 14:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This incident might be worth a brief mention in another article, but is clearly not notable in and of itself. 'Dog bites man Wikipedian - film at 11'. --CBDunkerson 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Very Strong Delete nn vanity article . non notable, an academic insofar as he's a student but he hasn't recieved his PhD yet. His notability for other reasons is meager at best.  --Strothra 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This can hardly be called "vanity". The subject did not write this article.  (I also voted delete, but for different reasons) --rogerd 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing that out, updated--Strothra 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, not noteworthy as an academic, and not noteworthy outside the context of Wikipedia. Dr Zak 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - this was in the news. Let's give it some time. If there is no further developments, the material may be merged into some other article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This carjacking near Houston was in the news, too. So what? Plenty of things make the news. An encyclopedia, OTOH, compiles things that people care about. The people voting "keep" would do well to ask themselves why they did vote to keep. The answer, I fear, is because they know Phil from editing here. It's a self-reference par excellence, and self-references for good reason do not go into the main namespace. Move it to Pwned Wikistalkers/Phil Sandifer, or to User:Phil Sandifer/I pwned my wikistalker if you must. Dr Zak 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayjg.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - while I don't think that Phil meets WP:BIO (thus far) the incident is worthy of inclusion in WP. As SlimVirgin mentioned above, it has been covered by a reputable journalist, and has attracted the interest of an attorney not representing Phil.  Add the idea that it may have originated with a block made by Phil, and it's a compelling story.  Maybe a tad self-referential, but worth inclusion in WP.  Guettarda 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether Cory Doctorow is a "reputable" journalist is disputable; he's probably better known as an indefatigably self-promoting minor science fiction writer with a raging Disneyland fetish. The story was "covered" with a couple of brief posts on a blog. Bwithh 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Harassment. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Phil doesn't view it that way. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable as an academic or outside of wikipedia. This is an article which only reports attack on some person who is only very weakly notable to wikipedians who are "in the loop" because of that - I would think only a small number of WPedians watch AN/I, read the signpost RfArb, RfC types of things.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How can it be an attack article if it says nothing bad about the subject, and the subject doesn't view it as an attack article? Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen, if it were an attack article, I wouldn't have worked on it and would have supported its deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I reworded my comment, but mainly the subject is only notable for being the subject of attacks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We have lots of articles on people who are only notable because of something that has happened to them, rather than because of something they've done themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Actually, I think this is a valid A7 speedy candidate. The story is a minor one, and being visited by the police is not grounds for significance. Phil Sandifer is a good admin, but not an encyclopedically notable one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the professor test, and the minor local news story doesn't qualify either. It goes without saying that Yet Another Lame Wikipedia Review Drama Storm doesn't qualify, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am additionally troubled that a fair number of the references in this article are to blog posts, which don't generally qualify as reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 08:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficiently noteworthy. &#0151; JEREMY 10:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xoloz and Capitalistroadster.--cj | talk 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is based on a self-reference to wikipedia. Not encyclopedic to reference oneself, particularly ones editor in ones encyclopedia. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 11:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficiently noteworthy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-- H eptor  <small style="color:#400000;">talk 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable enough for an article (neither is Brandt). Wikipedia has got to stop creating, and more importantly, keeping, articles about its goings on and its critics (and their websites). It's all non-notable, cruft and fodder for edit wars and rumors. -- Kjkolb 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To second your point: I think WP must recognize that like a news service, an encyclopedia is an observer (of notable news or facts, respectively). In both cases it is imperative for the neutral observer not to create news or facts while observing, just like in science a good sensing device must not influence the phenomenon being sensed. I think, hard as it may be to resist, WP must have a higher threshold of notability for anything related to itself, lest it create a feedback effect and thereby create new facts by its own reporting action. Crum375 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Xoloz. --Doc ask?  19:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Surely being covered by a notable weblog by Boing Boing denotes notability? Computerjoe 's talk 19:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the subjects Boingboing posts about are not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a dumping ground for every kind of ephemera. Bwithh 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment about "Short Story" I've just read Paul Sandifier's "I'm ready to serve my country". It's literally 9 lines worth of non-literary and non-poetic text. I think the description of this piece as a "short story" in the article is misleading Bwithh 20:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep He looks like that one American Idol star that David Spade called "Billygoat". His story is also a clear case of where a school abuses their power to get someone arrested based on a fictional story.  Also it's got lots of good sources while in comparsion Encyclopedia Dramatica lacks any sources and it's an article.  DyslexicEditor 21:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Four of the linked sources are from two different blogs, one of which belongs to the subject and one of which belongs to a personal friend of the subject. Those are not good sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant the "The Gainsville Sun" and "boingboing", references 4, 5, and 6. Aren't they good sources?  DyslexicEditor 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Boingboing is a blog, and Doctorow, the author of the boingboing posts, is a friend of Sandifer's. Not a really great source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well I didn't notice that before.  The Gainsville Sun is at least the one non-blog source, right?  DyslexicEditor 06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hence the parade of "one story in a local paper isn't enough" above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think besides from the sources, it's primarily notable as a source of the abuses of schools. For the whole argument over wikipedia admins vs. this or that, well I don't know if that's notable here (sure other websites that collect internet drama would like it), but really to me it's about school abuses and police abuse.  I've read many other stories where they've done the same thing (however it's been in high school, middle school, and similar things but not about stories in elementary school like someone accidentally brings a hunting knife to school and school policy says to turn the knife in and that's what the kid did once he got off the bus, but the school suspended him and tried to get him expelled for following its own rules).  Schools also basically say kids have no rights of free speech (this sentence is my opinion summary of some news articles I saw).  I don't want to dig the articles up, but this story is one example.  Sure, enemies will try to defame someone, but how an organization responds to it is but.  I once had an ISP with a static IP and I got in an argument with people once and my IP never changed and they sent in fake abuse reports 6-12 months after, constantly and I would disconnect my cable modem and the reports came in when it was actually disconnected, and still the ISP just believed it without checking.  Same is for Florida University.  Oh well, I rant.  DyslexicEditor 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So why does Phil get an article and your kid who brought his hunting knife to school doesn't? Why don't you, for that matter? This thing about abuses of educational institutions' legal paranoia may be notable (but only when a secondary source runs an article about them, if we try to write an article by collating a load of news stories about different people we're doing original research by synthesis). But that still wouldn't make the victims of it notable by proxy - murder is pretty notable but murder victims generally aren't. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Slimvirgin. Septentrionalis 22:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This proliferation of self-referential articles is getting out of control and must be put to a halt. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gnewf and Jayjg. I wish the deletionists would spend more of their time and effort in clearing out some of the manifold utterly unnoteworthy and completely unedifying sexual perversion articles instead.  Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish the inclusionists would spend as much time and effort helping to rewrite fictional character articles to encyclopedic standards. Alas, if you want something done around here, you have to do it yourself instead of complaining in unrelated AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The inclusionists would never let us get away with deleting sexual perversion articles. We can't even get this article deleted! Adam Bishop 06:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment was a mild chiding for bringing up a non sequitor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, not really notable and would hardly have an article were it not for the Wikipedia link. Sandstein 04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not an encyclopedic event or (yet) notable. - Longhair 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not nearly notable enough. Maybe in a few years he will deserve an article as he suggests he might on the talk page :-). NoSeptember  <sup style="color:green;">talk  04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if we are keeping all comparable people. Getting fingerprinted by the fuzz is not a big deal. Happens to me quite often ;-) Grace Note 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will be utterly forgotten in a fortnight. GeorgeStepan e k\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Matt Crypto 06:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. admin. Also per Geogre. jni 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not at all notable. Event can be mentioned in another article. --kingboyk 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - 'man on the street test' -> would a average man on the street know about wikipedia, maybe. Would a average man on the street consider it notable if there is a minor 'review' site critising WP, probably not.  Would a average man on the street care that Phil got hassled by the cop s over some story he wrote, no way.  He just isn't notable enough.  210.177.242.221 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To the extent that an anon's vote counts in AFD, by the definition outlined above, articles on topics such as tachyons, the Udmurt people, or the Battle of Marj Ardebil should all be deleted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tachyons are a staple of science fiction, there are plenty of people interested in them to some degree. As for the other two, I'm pretty sure men on the streets of Izhevsk and Ardebil would be pretty interested. I know that they're not of much interest to people on American streets, but by that yardstick we'd be deleting Australia. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If it makes any difference, I wrote the above. novacatz 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It may seem notable because it is linked to Wikipedia, but it is not. Schutz 09:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep An extremely compelling story. Meets minimum requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, he does? Has "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)?" Surely that's what you mean, as I doubt he meets the author requirement. --Rory096 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin. Max S em 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable outside of the wiki. Also, I feel sorry for the admin who has to tally these votes and make a decision. - Pureblade  | Θ 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur entirely with Geogre. Wikipedia is not the place for such localised self-referential articles. I of course mean no disrespect to Phil and the problems he has faced recently. Rje 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets notability requirement --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion Perhaps this article should be renamed/moved to something like "Police harassment of online author Phil Sandifer." The story is compelling on its own and would not suffer the requirements of WP:BIO. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it becomes an article about a minor, one-off news story. Should every home invasion or convenience store robbery get an article too? Fagstein 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he wasn't notable, it wouldn't take 50 people to say so. Stephen B Streater 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He's getting a lot of attention because he's known within Wikipedia. That doesn't make him notable outside the bubble here. Fagstein 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He certainly is notable within Wikipedia. Outside of it, however, he is not, and so should not have an article. --Rory096 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep this article please it is notable enough here Yuckfoo 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is certainly notable enough on WP, but not notable in the real world. --Ezeu 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Stephen B Streater. He was in the news. Also, it would be best to keep as large of a record of Brandt's activities as possible. jgp 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not brandt-watch.org (you can found that one if you like to!). Brandt itself is an Internet personality of minor significance, whose opinions on various topics do not merit a discourse in an encyclopedia. If this article is to be kept, then at least Brandt's comment about Phil should be edited out from this article. jni 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is non-notable. One person being brought in for brief questioning does not necessitate an article. Danaman5 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete We aren't going to going to have articles for everyone for whom there are verifiable 3rd party sources about being investigated by the police, are we? TheGrappler 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an interesting story. I'm glad it was brought to my attention and would like to know the eventual outcome. However, unless it leads to Lucky Phil being found guilty of murder, he's simply not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. As many people have said, it's merely a short-lived local news story. The article is more than it warrants. --Jacknstock 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, minor BrokenSegue 02:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Neurillon 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Tintin (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Mast  e  r  jamie  09:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is feeding the Wikipedia Review trolls. JFW | T@lk  11:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, non-notable. -- Dragonfiend 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is highly inappropriate and should be deleted. Hdtopo 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipediacruft. A minor news story. If he weren't a Wikipedia editor this AfD would get three "delete, nn-bio" votes(AfDisNotAVote) and we'd be done with it. Open any newspaper and you'll find more column inches than this devoted to nn people. Got Police Blotter? (Hilarious reading, btw.) Weregerbil 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. - FrancisTyers 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, minor college prank, made locally newsworthy by over-zealous security officers. Nothing of encyclopedic value so far. Zocky | picture popups 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete self-referential, (luckily) minor incident. Lukas (T. 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Octopus - Nothing against you personally Phil, but I don't feel that you are sufficiently notable at this juncture. Now if you sue the police for attempting to violate your fifth amendment rights and it goes to the Supreme Court, then you get an article (hint hint).  -- Cyde↔Weys  17:43, 31 May 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.