Talk:Brandt/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Daniel B

This just gets scarier. What is the origin of this weird policy of removing all references to Daniel Brandt from Wikipedia? I know nothing about the guy except that he made some loud objections to a former WP article about himself, but he's given as the founder of three organizations of sufficient note to have WP articles, so it seems quite absurd that a) we're not allowed to have an article about him as a person; b) we're not allowed to have his name redirect to any other relevant articles; c) we're not even allowed to mention him on the disambiguation page for his surname! I suspect this is going to get reverted but I'm going to put his line back on the page; if you disagree then revert away, but please discuss here also.--Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the situation as far as I can make out is this: DB definitely passes every test for notability. There was once an article about him but it was put up for deletion because of POV concerns. The result of the discussion was to merge with Public Information Research. This was done, leaving Daniel Brandt as a redirect to PIR. However that redirect was later deleted (out of process) by an admin. There was a deletion review and it was agreed to leave the redirect deleted because there was apparently not much information about DB in the PIR article. That seems to have changed now; personally I would be in favour of restoring the redirect and directing it to this page, but now is probably not the best time to start that argument again. (Or even better would be for someone to write an NPOV article about DB so that it could be reinstated.) Anyway, it has never been decided that he is not notable; there are three articles which together provide a good selection of information about him, so it is only fair for users looking for information about this person to be directed, at least from here, to the articles which have relevant information. It is very common for disambiguation pages to contain lines which link to differently-named articles, so there can be no objection to including this line as far as I can tell. Anyway, please discuss here instead of just reverting.--Kotniski (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every test? I don't think so. As far as I can tell, he fails the single most important test where living individuals are concerned, which is that he has not been the primary subject of any non-trivial biographical coverage in reliable independent sources. Tempting though it is to have an article just to spite him, especially given his recent antics, Wikipedia is not supposed to be evil and childish. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy with all due respect, that's simply not true. If you look at the old versions there were multiple independent reliable sources that focused on him. this is one of many examples. Indeed, looking at the previous DRVs and AfDs the consensus was that he did actually meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joshua. Wikipedia is supposed to be evil and childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.204.51 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per Guy, he not only has no article but is not going to have an article either, his article and redirect have been permanently deleted by consensus, this is very similar to GNAA and we need to keep the same attitude. The scary biyt is what you are doing, Kotniski, please do not do it again as you clearly have no consensus and appear to be pushing a point because you dislike the community consensus re how we deal with the DB link. This is simply not the place to deal with that frustration you feel and I am not willijg to engage in whether the community mnade the right or wrong decision here let alone allow you to use this (disambig) space to express your dissatisfaction with the community decision, nothing you have said here seems to have any relevance to this disambig page. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with both Guy and Squeaky here. What you're doing smacks of retribution here, and that's not what we're about. He's non-notable, plain and simple. Note that the three of us here have also been targeted by Brandt at various times but that this guy's WP-related activities, bad as they are, are irrelevant here - Alison ❤ 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so let's stick to the issue of the disamb page. (The community consensus concerns the article and redirect, so is not very relevant to this page, except that if you look at the DRVs you will find that it was never concluded that he was non-notable.) So: we may not have access to enough sourced information about DB to write a biography article at the moment, but he scores tens of thousands of Google hits (far more than most of the other people on this list, I suspect), and he appears as a key name in at least three WP articles, so there certainly seems to be ample reason to put a line about him here. Firstly so that users (of whom there must be many) coming for Wikipedia looking for reliable information about him can at least see what we've got. And secondly, because he doesn't have either an article or a redirect, this (Brandt) is the only page to which references to him in other articles can be wikilinked. There seems to be therefore no rational reason given for deleting the line from this disambiguation page, so unless someone can address that specific issue, I propose we put it back there.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose any such proposal until or unless we have an article on him, this page needs to be for people with an article called Brandt, especially due to BLP issues (comment added by SqueakBox)
If there are "BLP issues", then let's hear them. But whence this theory that only people with articles can appear on disambiguation pages? I've seen many exceptions to that "rule" all over Wikipedia, so I don't know why such a fuss about this one. --Kotniski (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the various different A and Rfds and DRVs for details, no need to regurgitate old material that has already been discussed. As I say for another example of this see GNAA where we do not include a deleted organisation article which again was the subject of controversy and multiple afds. And when something is uncontroversial then exceptions are made but this disambig page is not uncontroversial. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I looked at the history of this, I know the article and redirect were discussed and understand (though partly disagree with) the deletion decisions reached. However as far as I remember the disambig page was not discussed (please point me there if it was). Doubt if GNAA is a comparable case (more clearly non-notable I would have thought, without having time right now to look into it). And here I don't think I'm asking for an exception to be made, just normal WP policy (or at least general practice) to be adhered to. It's you who seems to be asking for an exception, so by your own argument etc. etc. Will write more when I have time,--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the disambig page here, and the consensus seems to be to exclude, and very much within our WP policies, which all of use here are very familiar with. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the consensus seems to be to exclude"? Is this an attempt to transfer the alleged consensus about the article and the redirect to this page as well? If you look at those discussions I doubt you'll find that the conclusions reached there have any relevance to this disambiguation page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've looked up GNAA, I see what you mean about the situations being similar. But the key difference here is that we do have perfectly sound articles (at least three apparently) about DB which can be linked to (and from). So unlike the GNAA dab entry, the DB line would actually serve a useful purpose to those navigating the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I've restored this per WP:REDLINK. Oh, and please stop claiming there was ever consensus to delete the biography; y'all know that's not true. -- Kendrick7talk 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've re-deleted it. Do not re-add it without consensus here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So let's here some real arguments here, instead of spurious references to other discussions which were about something else. As far as I'm concerned we're still waiting for a single reason to be given as to why this line shouldn't be here.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I'm restoring it. Don't redelete it without consensus here. I'll add sourcing as well upon request. -- Kendrick7talk 21:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. BLP requires consensus to add, not to remove. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disambiguation page, not a BLP. Allowing readers looking for notable people with the last name Brant to find Daniel Brant listed here isn't a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. I can come back with sources tomorrow though if you are trying to make a notability argument. -- Kendrick7talk 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but there are a number of unresolved issues here; 1) the guy is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. As you know he did have an article and now it's gone and highly unlikely to return. 2) I believe the community has spoken and with a sufficiently unified voice of the Brandt issue. 3) the subject himself is vehemently against his name being on here, and against Wikipedia in general. 4) WP:REDLINK does not cover this scenario given the high unlikelihood of the article being created. Indeed, the red link here will be a constant temptation to those who are unaware of the background to do exactly that. 5) This smacks of retribution, revenge, punishment on so many levels and frankly, Wikipedia is not here to hurt people. Jimbo's exact words. 6) This dab page is fast becoming a substitute for the now-deleted bio, thus falling into the BLP category yet again. It's literally biographical by definition and last time I heard, Mr. Brandt was alive, so yes - let's apply the policy here and not wikilawyer over it. This is fast turning into a battleground, and a waste of everyone's time. Please - just let the man go. It's time to move on from all this Brandt nonsense - Alison ❤ 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'll happily provide references showing the notability per WP:N, and apply the rather important policy of WP:ENC. You are incorrect that there was ever consensus to delete Daniel Brandt -- I've asked innumerable times for a link to the standing AfD on which is was decided to delete the biography in a number of forums, and, bizarrely, no one who makes this claim that some consensus was ever reached knows where it is -- although that's irrelevant here either way, per WP:BURO. As for the wishes of the subject, you may wish to note the community's recent rejection of WP:OPTOUT. WP:REDLINK certainly does apply, and one sentence here hardly violates WP:BLP; if you disagree, feel free to file an RFC. Unless you have some evidence that suggests I have some vendetta against Daniel Brandt, and I absolutely do not, there's no reason to jump into conspiratorial thinking here or personal attacks, so I'll just say that I have no idea what you are talking about in point 5. -- Kendrick7talk 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Daniel_Brandt_once_again_up_for_discussion and a link to the fifth DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_5. The 14th AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination). Yeah, you read that right, Daniel Brandt has had 14 AfDs and 5 DRVs. You see, it's not a problem of not having enough sources. I can assure that any source that you can provide has already been analyzed to death several times. It was blanked as a courtesy, so you will have to look at the history (and please don't unblank the page unless you want to get wacked very very hard by several admins who would not like your action at all, and by several I mean several dozens). I think that it was because of this case that WP:BLP1E was created. There is also an ArbCom case but I don't know the link. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←*sigh* ... well, I'm not looking for references. You've largely ignored most of what I've said. As regards vendettas, I specifically didn't mention anyone by name, least of all you, but instead, point you to comments like this. Yes, there are plenty of people who would only love to "stick it to Brandt". I'm no great fan myself after what he did to me. But warring over a dab page?? C'mon - this is wrong! - Alison ❤ 03:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believed I had addressed nearly everything you had said, point for point in fact, but otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly. I will restore the red link and can only hope that the warring will stop. However, it's not up to me, but rather, up to certain parties who would, beyond all reason, exclude notable information from our encyclopedia. I must thank you, however, for sharing Mr. Shankbone's comments, though; he and I had quite the row at Talk:Santa Claus not so long ago (December if you can imagine that!), but I must say I am warming to him. -- Kendrick7talk 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alison (et al.), I understand you've been personally involved in all this and must have strong emotions about it, but please try to look at this rationally and not see everything in terms of conspiracies and vendettas. We are simply trying to build the encyclopedia in a perfectly normal, useful and harmless way. I understand why people might be motivated to remove this reference, but frankly I think their reasons are based on either false information or false deductions, as explained pretty well by Kendrick. As you say, let's move on from this nonsense, but let's leave the page as it should be, with onward link(s) enabling users searching for the encyclopedic information we have on this person to find it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, let's abide by WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. SirFozzie (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we will. But please explain (in patronising detail if necessary) what specifically in WP:BLP or WP:CONSENSUS you think is being violated by putting this link in.--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to second guess people's motives for removing the sentence is not a good idea, Kotniski. I removed his name becuase he isn't notable enough to be here and not for any other reason. This is me "trying to build the encyclopedia in a perfectly normal, useful and harmless way" and in a dispassionate way, this type of dab page is not meant to be a list of all the p[eople mentioned in wikiepdia but only for those notable enough to either have or warrant (ie red links) an article. This is eminently sensible as far more people are mentioned on wikipedia than those who just have an article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested compromise

I've added Brandt in but not as a redlink but rather as a pipe-through to PIR. This should satisfy everyone since there was agreement that PIR was Brandt's main claim to fame. (And frankly it is a bit stupid to insist on a redlink when we know there isn't any article. If there is later an article presumanly it can be added back in then). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I already reverted you. You are on an agreed removal from Brandt harassment, are you not? Can we not just end this bullshit before we end up losing more admins so can get your little payback for Brandt putting your mug on Hivemind? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence, kindly grow up. I agreed that I wouldn't start any discussions on Brandt related matters. I haven't. I've proposed an attempted compromise which you haven't explained why you have a problem with. And frankly, if your sole reason is that your worried about more harassment from Brandt then a) stop giving a mouse a cookie and b) don't be so naive. Given that Brandt has continued to engage in massive harassement of our most respected editors there's no need for any illusion that not putting this name here will make him stop. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and incidentally, as I've explained to you before, I really don't care much that Brandt put my "mug" on Hivemind. I suggest you stop your run track mind and consider that some people actually want to have the best content for our readers. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why poke at a bear thats already a man-eater? Especially a non-notable one? Kindly grow up yourself, use one account, and cut your hair. The constant drive to make sure that Brandt's name shows up here on Google is baffling. The man is absolutely barely notable, and this does no-one any good. We have repeated, endless consensus over the last DRVs that the Community doesn't want this drama anymore. If you don't stop your zealotry the community will see that it is stopped. You are just one user of no particular importance and can be sanctioned for abuse. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are a more important user who can't? Can we keep off the personal abuse (all sides) and just consider this issue rationally. The arguments have been set out above; notability seems to have been pretty much established; so if there are no further reasoned objections then let's leave the line in where it should be and move on to other matters. Or if there are reasoned objections then let's hear them explicitly so we can discuss them civilly.--Kotniski (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so does anyone other than Lawrence object to the compromise form? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err don't you mean notability has clearly not been established so lets just stick to the consensus on this page and not have mention of him or his organisations. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of good sources about him and his organizations; tens of thousands of relevant Google hits; past deletion discussions which always found him to be notable despite contrary assertions being made; well-sourced existing articles about notable organizations which mention his important role in them - in any normal case an assertion of non-notability would be speedily dismissed. If you want no mention of him or his organizations, go to those articles and try and get them deleted, but community consensus at the moment is clearly that they represent useful information and should stay. Consensus on this page is clearly lacking at the moment, so let's discuss rationally and try to reach such a consensus. The question is whether the link to articles about DB does more harm than good. The good is simple convenience for users; let's hear about the alleged harm and weigh them up.--Kotniski (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree with you Joshua but I'm not aware of any agreement that "PIR was Brandt's main claim to fame" (or any reason to use the past-tense "was" for that matter). — CharlotteWebb 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with including any mention on this page - so no so called "compromise" version is acceptable in my eyes. The community has come to a clear and overwhelming consensus that this individual does not merit an article. The WP:REDLINK is being misused; the spirit of WP:REDLINK is that we redlink to things that should have an article. Instructions for deleting administors are to remove incoming links when a decision has been made that a subject should not have an article, so the community consensus to eliminate the article is also a community consensus to eliminate any link here. PIR remains worthy of an article, but an article on PIR is not an article on Brandt, and as such has no place in the Brandt disambiguation page. GRBerry 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please link to the AfD where this supposed consensus was reached. Simply repeating this claim over and over doesn't make it true. -- Kendrick7talk 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you find the link yourself, and generally read up on the subject if you wish to participate in these discussions, yoiu cannot expect others to chase around looking for old afds for you when most of us appear far more familiar with the case than you are. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Riight. I'm off to find the link to support GRBerry's delusions. Anyone known the transwiki markup for imagination land? -- Kendrick7talk 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought it was a sensible comment of Berry's. And what I meant is you should familiarise yourself with the subject. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming binding DRV decisions

As demonstrated by the fact the community constantly crushes any attempts to revive a Brandt article on DRV shows that aside from an extremely dedicated [{WP:FRINGE|minority of users]], there is no consensus to re-add Brandt's content. These attempts here are an attempt to again bypass the binding DRV decisions. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What content is being re-added here that has ever been deleted and confirmed by DRV? Brandt content exists, just not under his name, and this is an attempt to enable users to find it in the normal way. --Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for people called Brandt who have articles about them. Our users have no need to find the name Daniel Brandt because there is no article on him (besides using search will bring up PIR. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose they know he's called Brandt but don't know/remember his first name? That's presumably why we have this page to begin with.--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was made that there is to be no Daniel Brandt per DRV. There is therefore no authorization for the existence of a piped blue link here nor a red link, which cannot be recreated anyway into an article without a new authorization from DRV. I have no opinion on the plain text version, but I note many other users (Alison, Fozzie, others) are opposed to that as well. Therefore, I do not see how there is any consensus for Daniel Brandt content here on this page. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at exactly what was decided at DRV. It was decided to merge DB with PIR; that happened. It was then decided (inconsistently with the earlier decision) that the redirect from DB to PIR should be deleted (that pre-happened). It was never decided that "there is to be no Daniel Brandt" - if someone creates a good biographical article about him then presumably it would be allowed to stand there. It was never decided that DB must not be mentioned on WP (he is, in several places). Putting in appropriate links from a disambig page to other WP articles doesn't require "authorization" from DRV. I agree though that the plain text version is preferable to a piped link, and that there isn't consensus even for that at the moment, but I genuinely don't understand the arguments against it and would like to see them set out explicitly.--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Squeakey pointed out, there is a simple determined consensus that we will not mention Brandt. There are other cases of borderline people we don't mention. Daniel Brandt is on the level of Brian Peppers or Barbara Bauer. Could we squeeze out a crappy article on them or a DAB mention? Maybe or maybe not, but the community's weight has spoken, and said "no thanks" and so they are gone. You seriously need to file a DRV. Whatever "consensus" emerges on a DAB page is of exactly zero value and authority on this case. I know people want to get "Daniel Brandt" into article space, but there is no other option or recourse left. Go to DRV or drop it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lawrence. Wikipedia doesn't actually work the way you are suggesting; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Please try and focus your arguments to the situation at hand. -- Kendrick7talk 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works exactly this way, by weight of consensus. How many users support including Brandt here? You? Josh? 1-2 others? Do you 2-4 outrank ALL the people on the last DRV? No, not at all. Brandt will not be mentioned here until it clears DRV. Sorry. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to be an expert on how wikipedia works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NameBase&diff=210605601&oldid=210602048 Here you are encouraging others to recreate the DB article. Why are you doing this? Thanks, SqueakBox 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry if you don't wish to respect what Wikipedia is not, but that page has longstanding consensus. Feel free to try and overturn WP:BURO and get back to me, at which point your arguments will hold water. -- Kendrick7talk 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are phasing me out with your wikilawyering. I am not a policymaker on wikiepdia, I am an editor. Please do not persist in trying to get other users to recreate the Brandt article, which would be a speedy candidate, and please respect the consensus on this page instead of ignoring it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Squeak here. All other things aside, there is no consensus support for including Brandt here on this page. In support we have Kendrick, Kotniski and JoshuaZ, opposed we see myself, Squeak, Fozzie, and Alison. There is no support to include this, but all that aside the other way, DRV holds sway. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there is no consensus to delete this material. So please stop doing so, and we can unprotect the article, mmmK? (and you should probably go ahead and include Thatcher, who you WP:CANVASSed to come here, on your list; it will be of little surprise or import when he and perhaps others you canvassed show up here.) -- Kendrick7talk 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking parties to review a case is not canvassing. And wrong, there is no consensus to add it. Those who wish to include any content must justify that inclusion. I object to unprotecting at this time with the strongest force. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that consensus has now changed to exclude this material which has been a part of this article for years on end. -- Kendrick7talk 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, it was removed it appears in August 2007 and re-added suddenly 7 days ago. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Lawrence, can you justify your assertion that "there is a [...] consensus that we will not mention Brandt"? I can't find any DRV that reached that conclusion; and we do currently mention Brandt in several articles. I remain genuinely confused as to what's going on here.--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community has spoken at DRV repeatedly, and at AFD. If you want to take it up there at DRV again, that is on you to do so. We are done with the BLP nightmare drama. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence the only person creating drama here is you. I've proposed a compromise solution and I have yet to here an explanation from you as to why that compromise isn't a good idea aside from your concern that Brandt will continue to harass people (which continues anyways). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the compromise is not good because it has no consensus support. I bow to consensus; consensus does not bow to me, and it certainly doesn't bow to any editor no matter who they are or what they are. Between the repeated DRVs, AFDs, discussions, and other things, there is no consensus for Daniel Brandt to be in article space, and this is ANOTHER attempt to game and bypass that. Obey consensus, JoshuaZ. Why are you unwilling to do that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence, if you haven't noticed I'm not arguing for the article right now, I'm trying to reach a compromise position. No discussion has occurred that supports your claimed consensus for not mentioning Brandt on relevant pages. If you think otherwise I suggest you try to remove his name from PIR, Google-watch and Namebase. Now can you please explain why you object to my compromise proposal? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My position on the DAB page on a personal level is that there is insufficient notability to merit inclusion of his name as a link in any capacity on this page--thats what I have argued; that's what I RV'd. As there will never be a Daniel Brandt article until DRV approves it (fact) there is no need to ever have a red link on this page, or PIR, or a redirect, or anything else. Your attempt to blue link pipe his name into the other article was similarly unacceptable to me as it violates the very spirit of consensus and the DRV, essentially mocking the community's collective will in favor of your own fringe position. Will you bow to the will of the community like you should? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your compromise, Josh, because this si the page for people called Brandt for whom we have articles. We do not put Michael 'Mick' Donovan on the Donovan name page even though he apears in the Disappearance of Shannon Matthews article and a long etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's a valid point. I think when we've merged people before we've generally included their names on the relevant dab pages. But I have neither a policy to point to nor a specific example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a good point, but I've never had an issue with listing notable persons on dab pages before, e.g. Tom Miller, where I listed all of the various Tom Millers who appeared anywhere on wikipedia, piped where applicable. I'm not sure if WP:DISAMBIG provides guidance here one way or the other. -- Kendrick7talk 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. "As demonstrated by the fact the community constantly crushes any attempts to revive a Brandt article on DRV" Where there's the biggest load of bullshit I've read today. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we the only encyclopedia that adds anyone who doesn't want it to? Well, then... how about this... DO NOT ADD ME TO WIKIPEDIA!!! ...*opposite psychology fail* 66.183.59.211 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I've protected the article on what is undoubtedly the wrong version. Obviously, I'll unprotect after the editing difference is resolved. PhilKnight (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused by the above; why protect it on the wrong version? and what makes it so "undoubtedly" wrong?--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, he's kidding, Kotniski see m:WRONG) A wise decision, as WP:3RR applies neither to WP:BLP or WP:VANDALISM this was looking to spiral out of control. I'm happy to give the other side more time to provide a coherent explanation on why they believe the one sentence is a BLP violation, or why the given sources -- an encyclopedia entry and a biographical article, and I can provide more -- do not attest to the subject's notability per WP:N. -- Kendrick7talk 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The community has buried this and it needs to be brought up on DRV. See here. Any attempts to game DRV's binding authority will be stopped. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOOOH, you mean like when WJB deleted the redirect Daniel Brandt in direct violation of a DRV, and proceeded to get away with it because people only endorsed to "end the drama"? Propaganda has no place in these discussions, Lawrence. If you want to blatantly lie about how the community feels about this, then don't bother commenting at all. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err what? All this information ahs laready been given and I told you to check the a and rfds and drv for background tot he BLP violation, so i hope you did read that, i am nit going to trawl up that info again for your benefit. Tha arguments have been stated and consensus is to not mention him, is that hard to understand? We are nopt going to discuss his notability as a biography subject here, that has been done and dusted. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, folks. This is a disambiguation page for notable people sharing the name "Brandt." The notability has been show via the sources provided. That a redirect somewhere at one point failed DRV has no bearing here per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7talk 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is the final arbiter for deleted content, and 1-3 people here do not ever trump DRV consensus. No way. Your 1-3 person-strong "consensus" does not trump the 200 (?) people that weighed in on Bradnt DRV #5. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that DRV #5 is a strong consensus that this discussion has yet to approach overturning. Further, if a DRV discussion is to be overturned, I would think that DRV would be the place to do so, yes? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but mentioning someone on a dab page when they are relevant and sending them to the relevant Wikipedia article isn't in any way problematic under the DRV. See my proposed compromise. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What changed in Brandt's notability from August 2007 when he was removed from this page, until April 30 2008, when he was re-added, Josh? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see me suggest that anything had changed? Nothing needs to have changed if editors only noticed the absence on this page recently. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear not to be listening to other people, and then wikilawyering as if what others think is of no consequence. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this complaint addressed to anyone in particular? There are several people on this page who appear to deserve it.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I keep getting edit conflicted, it was addressed to you, Kendrick. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt is in fact a notable topic on Wikipedia. The only thing that had what could even be considered community consensus was that it might not be best to have a full bio article for him. That was the result of the complex merge of the last AFD. Just because Doc G and WJB gamed the system doesn't change how the community actually feels about the situation. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Than follow process. We've done it for the ED article without too much drama. Write a new version, take it to DRV, and we'll talk there. Attempting to get around the issue by creating redirects and extra disambig page mentions IS gaming the system and will not work. MBisanz talk 04:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to add it to the disambig page, so you're speaking to the wrong guy. I do think the argument to include it is reasonable, and I don't believe it's correct to say that listing him here is gaming the system. The deletion of the redirect was gaming the system. And that's some nerve you have there demanding that people use DRV when Doc and WJB refused to do so themselves. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they followed process, only that those actions were confirmed via community approval. Now if you have an issue with administrator conduct Ned, Doc_Glasgow is gone and WJBscribe is around and able to be taken to WP:RFC/ADMIN, WP:AN, or WP:RFAR. That is following proper process for dealing with an alleged wrong of an admin. Anyone attempting to edit war over it is NOT following the proper process. MBisanz talk 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actions were not confirmed via community approval, not one bit. The DRVs were painfully split, not to mention full of people supporting and opposing for the wrong reasons (yes, there were people on both sides using bad logic, like "omg, end the drama" and "he's a bad man"). At most there's no real consensus on what to do with the situation, and Doc and WJB stacked the deck in their favor by requiring a consensus to restore, instead of a consensus to delete. WJB over all is a great guy, and while I think his deletion of the Brandt redirect was a really bad call, it's not the sum of his existence here. Same with Doc, for that matter, and I'm sad that he's chosen to leave the project. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop asking for a link to the AfD

Please read first my comment about how no amount of sourcing is going to solve this, and about not undoing the courtesy blankings[1], and then gape in amazament at the list:

brackets added later by me--Kotniski (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Notice how the last link is a frigging ArbCom case where two admins were desysoped, and how another admin got his admin bit taken out temporally "For undeleting an article in opposition to policy and consensus". Now stop asking where is the consensus for the Brandt article staying deleted, and go read all those links before restoring the damned entry again. In before the stupid well-intentioned suggestion: making an entry with the same info that was deleted from the article is just not going to cut it, not on a case like this one. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some of you already had the links to all this stuff and then some more [2]. Please, next time give the links here so people can judge by themselves. I could have saved myself the 5 minutes of using Google. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Remark: I'll just go and recommend people that, if they really still want to add the entry, then they go and open a 6th DRV, since this is the only course of action that has even the smallest of chances of succeeding. Just be sure to tell me so I can bring popcorn. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the bits in brackets above. I'm withdrawing from this discussion since I'm finding it quite impossible to assume good faith when certain people seem to be continually trying to swing the discussion by lying knowingly providing misinformation about what has been decided in the past. --Kotniski (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the matter is much more complex and it can't be summed up with only a few words. If it was a simple issue then the closing decision of DRV5 wouldn't be 378 words long and it wouldn't be talking about accepting a WP:IAR argument of all arguments that were given. Also notice that a such long argument on a heated issue will get interpreted in many different ways by different editors. Myself, I read " If people want to know about him, create and stick to an article, don't create a redirect that will only get Joe Reader lost." and I can't reach the same conclusion that Kotniski reaches (no, I'm not going to tell you what conclusion I reach, I don't want to argue about this).
It also doesn't help to the situation that people say that the admin suggested creating an article as the best solution and then they attempt to create a redirect or an entry on a disambiguation page instead of, you know, digging sources for notability and putting up a draft article that can go to DRV6 and have a chance to be accepted as asserting enough notability for an article, which would be actually following the recommendations by the closing admin (notice that I'm not naming any names here and that I don't intend to refer to anybody in particular, there have been several editors trying to do this and I haven't ever talked to most of them before posting on this page and I don't intend to judge anybody's behaviour, they must have had their reasons to do this and I respect that. Again, this is too complex to judge other people actions. Kotniski is not the first editor to interpret that decission that way, if my bad memory does not fail me too much, and I'm sure that he won't be the last one, and I'm sure that this interpretation is shared by other editors at this page)
So, again, seriously, if someone still wants this entry then please go to DRV6 to propose it --Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having promised to withdraw from this, I'll just ask a procedural question - is DRV really a possible forum? We're not trying to overturn the result of any previous deletion discussion, just add a new line to this page, so I can't see what we would be asking for a review of.--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that DRV has reviewed an article/redirect on this topic 5 times, yes - I think they would be the appropriate forum. It's obviously an unusual request, and it's obviously a heated topic, and there are admins and editors with personal feelings on the matter both ways. Filing a DRV would be a (minor) concession to everybody, and it would show a good faith attempt to hear all sides. As heated as the discussion got here, it also didn't get a whole lot of outside input - a DRV would be more visible, which is necessary for a case such as this one. Hell, we actually had an edit war going here for a bit there, and DRV would - in theory - avoid that sort of drama. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 11:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, this is a reply to Kotniski's comment)If we are talking about an entry on this page then we would be asking for overturning of the deletion of the redirect. An entry on a disambiguation page would serve a purpose similar to a redirect: orienting people that was searching for "Daniel Brandt" on the direction of the PIR article. Since it serves the same purpose it will probably be considered as being affected by the DRV5 decision, which means that an appeal to DRV5 will be necessary. Now, the decision says that the redirect was deleted for being worthless so we would need to show that the entry is valuable (either valuable for the encyclopedia, or valuable for finding information about Brandt, whatever). Hum, let's see, basically, "Daniel Brandt" should be used for biographical information on the actual person. Now, his founding of PIR (and associated NameBase) and his actions on wikipedia are not strictly biographical, or at least they are not likely to be considered so on a DRV. Also, all information about the founding and his actions are already on the PIR article. So, the idea would be finding reliable notable sources making notable coverage of the person himself stating that those two things are representative of that person, and that he can be defined by them (the same way a singer is sometimes defined by the singles he makes). The DRV would almost certainly only be successful if such a source is found. Just arguing that the entry is useful would surely get shot down in no time. This about covers Kotniski's question. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if we are talking about creating an actual article about Brandt, then we need to find notable sources making coverage of the person himself on a context that is not of either PIR (and NameBase) nor his actions at wikipedia. This has the same problem as above: Any source that is making coverage of him because of those two things will automatically be discarded as an argument at any DRV by using WP:BLP1E: the person got famous for one event and the coverage of the event should be done at the event article because of privacy concerns. So, basically, the salon article that was being used here could only be used at the NameBase article because the article talks about Brandt because he made that database and not because of Brandt himself. As a general rule of tumb, the article is not biographical because it does not talk about Brandt's birth date, does not talk about the evolution of his ideas outside of what is necessary to frame the introduction of the NameBase thing, and then the article goes to talk about other issues around Google's PageRank and the issues related to NameBase and mentions other people's opinions on those issues and does not mention those same person's opinions on Brandt. For example, Danny Sullivan's statement is only about Brandt's call and then she is quoted on some opinions of Google. This is not my personal assesment, btw. This is the assessment that I think that will most probably get done at a DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This means that the Salon article would probably not be useful at all on a DRV, neither for a redirect nor for an article re-creation. I suppose that after 14 AfDs and 5 DRV and 1 RfD about all sources have already been found and examined to death under several angles, so we should have to either find new sources, or find old sources that for some reason nobody had noticed at all until now, or make a totally different analysis of one of the already provided sources. Basically, the best bet is waiting for Brandt to become more famous so he gets coverage for himself, and new sources are published. Sorry if I overlooked something, I'm a bit tired now and I have made a few typos. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent summation of the situation, actually. Well said. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enric, thank you very much for tracking all that down. The Conspiracy Encyclopedia (2005), which appears (from the online snippets I've seen) to have an entry on Brandt (with birth year even), would be at least one new source, and I am awaiting a hardcopy of it through the mail. -- Kendrick7talk 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one clear thing wrong with tit--that part about BLP1E. Given that the notability would derive from at least 3 separate places, "PIR (and NameBase [and] his actions at wikipedia.", this is not remotely oneevent. Wouldn't be anyway--both Namebase and PIR at last continued for a considerable period. I do agree with Naval that there is no point in restoring an article unless it be a very strong one, given the history--history which to me represents a most dramatic example of 1.. Keep AfDing it until it happens to get deleted. and then 2. rule-shop to find a way to block all the channels for ordinary reconstitution, followed by 3. try to remove every mention of the name, even in cases where we ordinarily would use a redirect. Not worth fighting about the redirect, in my opinion, when we ought to work for the article. But, FWIW, I'll add another voice for keeping the mention at the disam page. I think that's enough to destroy the claimed consensus to remove it. DGG (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close, for the MANY reasons that have been stated previously. SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note most of those AFDs and DRVs were before my time (IIRC I was around for 13 and 14 and didn't comment). I have no objection to an article being created, using our processes for overturning deletion. As I've mentioned before, the ED article's recreation hasn't occurred yet, but proposals for how to do it have been submitted in a manner per policy. That should be the model (+BLP rules) for this situation. MBisanz talk 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, you will still need to go to DRV6 for this entry. I don't think that you can overturn that consensus at DRV with consensus at this talk page, you will need to show that a new consensus exists at a new DRV. Notice also that NameBase and PIR can probably be considered the same event (NameBase was created by PIR while Brandt was in charge of it, and it's probably what makes PIR so famous on the first place together with Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch). The fact that Google Watch was founded because of problems with PIR makes even an stronger case for 1E. Notice that his criticism wikipedia are already covered at both Wikipedia Watch and PIR articles. About his actions trying to remove his own article, I'm not sure of whether this was covered by notable sources or if it ever managed to have any resonance out of the little inside world of wikipedia.
  • If you want to propose an entry, then stop linking directly the person name to anything. That's exactly what causes the BLP1E problems, you are linking the person name too tightly to one event on his life. Try this wording instead: "Daniel Brandt, reseacher and webmaster, founder of Public Information Research.". Removing the Watch wikilink avoids complaints of undue weight, since the PIR article already links to the Watch articles and explains them in context. Also, disambiguation entries should be as short as possible. You could also propose a longer wording as an alternative and let the DRV choose between the two wordings: "Daniel Brandt, reseacher and webmaster, founder of Public Information Research and Google Watch.". I don't think that it's necessary to add references to a disambiguation entry when it's wikilinking to an article that is already properly sourced. You could argue that it's necessary because it's a controversial information that is bound to be removed unless it's sourced, see relevant Manual of Style page Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_adding_material_that_is_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for an article, when an article is ready, the procedure will be to take it to DRV, in spite of the abuse of process that has previously occurred. Never implied otherwise. By the way, I have no intention at the moment to work on it, and I think those who do understand that DRV will be the next step once they have a strong enough article. What I think there is consensus for is a understanding of BLP1E that it doesnt apply to continuing events with continuing coverage, or to the development of a single notable enterprise or group of enterprise. Whether or not the enterprises are notable enough and his role important enough will be for the subsequent discussions, not here. DGG (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt reference

Folks, can we please stop adding the reference to Daniel Brandt on this disambig. page? It's starting to smack of retribution. I'm no fan of the guy myself (I'm already on Hivemind, and have the current record for cussing the guy out :) ) but can we not just leave the man alone? The encyclopedia is not going to fall apart if his name somehow isn't on the disambig page, or if his article's been deleted. Let's just show a little respect for live subjects of articles even if it's just a dab page. You know this is going to annoy the guy, so why do it? It's not like it's not come up before - see the length discussion above - Alison ❤ 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it annoys him (and I see no reason why it should), let him present his arguments for himself. Meanwhile he has significant mentions in WP articles, the claim that "he will never have an article" has been shown in the previous discussion to be not only false but probably deliberately dishonest, so we should follow normal practice for dab pages and include the entry. If you look at WP:D (and at WP dab pages generally) you'll see it gives explicit examples of this situation - there doesn't need to be an article on X1 for X1 to be included on the dab page for X.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously cannot present the argument for himself, as he's banned from Wikipedia and thus has no forum here, nor no right to input into his own biographical materials. Furthermore, he's been repeatedly demonstrated to be non-notable, and adding his name to the dab page serves little or no function - Alison ❤ 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When has he been demonstrated to be non-notable? As you'll see from the previous thread, that was never the conclusion in any of the many deletion discussions. And anyway, "not notable enough for an article" would not imply "not notable enough for inclusion on a dab page". --Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the reams and reams of previous dialog, as well as endless AFDs and DRVs. Frankly, he's not been shown to be notable, IMO, and no - I don't believe he warrants mention on the dab page neither, nor do I see support for that in WP:D, as you suggest - Alison ❤ 09:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So show me one discussion that has concluded with the consensus that he is non-notable. And even if he were not notable enough to have an article, that still wouldn't be an argument against his inclusion on this page. Sorry, I should have said WP:MOSDAB, not WP:D; the relevant section is WP:MOSDAB#Items appearing within other articles.--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of notability is the main criterion here, not the lack of evidence of non-notability. Otherwise I can just toddle on over to the Cassidy dab page and sign myself up :/ Nor, BTW, am I seeing any justification for inclusion of the man's name in MOSDAB neither. This is tenuous in the extreme - Alison ❤ 10:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again. It says an item can be included if mentioned in another article. If you're mentioned in a WP article, then by all means add yourself to the Cassidy page. If not, then don't. Now I know the guideline says "can" (not "must") be included, but D Brandt appears in not just one but many WP articles (trying searching for him), and in some cases as a key figure in the article, so I don't think there's any doubt that his entry qualifies. Look around a few other dab pages - you'll see many more obscure entries than this, and a good thing too, since it helps people find information they may actually be looking for.--Kotniski (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my original comment. Also per the userbox on your own page; "This user believes that common sense trumps all other arguments." I think now is the time to apply this and let's just leave the guy alone. As someone else pointed out, "Wikipedia is not here to hurt people" - Alison ❤ 10:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how putting someone's name on a dab page hurts him. It's common sense not to treat people unreasonably, but we can't pander to everyone's whim - we're here to provide information, after all.--Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely agreed that Wikipedia is not here to hurt people, but if you want to ensure that it does not, removing fraudulent claims from articles on fraudulent cancer cures that cause actual deaths might be a way to do some good. Waterblasting a bit of whitewash off pyramid schemes might be another. Rant about Vietnam Vets stabbing Brandt in his old folks home Why not link to a person notable for his conspiracy 'research' as the prime mover of Public Information Research? -- Nevard 11:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, my bad. The PIR article has been deleted? Without even getting into the laughable bullshit by Brandt-puppets over whois record transfers from 'PIR' to 'PIR, with records hidden' or 'Daniel Brandt, with records hidden' this is hugely weak. -- Nevard
There are still other articles to link to though (search for Daniel Brandt to find a few possibilities). There must be a link to something, though - the recent attempted addition was unhelpful because it didn't include any blue link at all.--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the f? A fight, with the inevitable edit-warring and wikilawyering, to put a name of some guy on a dab page? Why did you appear here and pick on this name above the millions of others? Because you see a big loss to wikipedia by excluding it? NO. I'll tell you why, because you are trolling. Pure and simple. At best interpretation, you are disrupting wikipedia to make some ideological point, but I'm finding it impossible to assume other than this is deliberate drama hunting, intended either to provoke an outside individual or to start some type of wiki-war. Now, grow up, knock it off, and stop being a dick.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and discuss reasonably, please. All your wild accusations could equally well be applied to the other side, if you preferred. Why make such a big fuss to keep this guy's name off the page? --Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because his article has been deleted at AFD, and then denied recreation at DRV, so you take out also from the dab page, like any other article that has suffered that fate (example) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think you've understood the dab page guidance referred to above. The example you give is not relevant, since the item being deleted there was presumably one that was not mentioned in any other article either (at least I assume so, given the lack of another blue link in the line). That certainly isn't the case with DB.--Kotniski (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned on 2000s_in_fashion#Scene, a blue link that was on that line, and MOSDAB only refers to one article mentioning it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm sorry I misread it. Such a link could easily have remained though - many others of that type do.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the AfD concluded that there were no sources showing that such thing as a "scene subculture" existed, and, if it existed, it wasn't notable enough at all.
As for Brandt, the 2nd DRV endorsed the deletion of the article, the 3rd DRV endorsed the deletion of the leftover redirect of his name, and the 4th DRV endorsed the "status quo". Now, placing his name here would go against the spirit of those DRVs (I'm actually surprised that he didn't object to his name appearing on the Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch articles). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scott might be a bit firm in his statements, but if you want reasonable discussion, well... "laughable bullshit by Brandt-puppets" reads a lot like trolling to me, not reasonable discussion. There is no need for this name to be included on this disambig page, and those insisting there is such an need strike me as more likely to be puppets than those pointing out reasonably that this has been discussed to death, over and over. ++Lar:t/c 02:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone here's a puppet, and there's no excuse for incivility on either side. But there is no contradiction between saying there's a need (I wouldn't go as far as need) to include the name, and observing that the issue has been much discussed (obviously true, though never with any satisfactory outcome, mainly because of the emotionally charged invective that always seems to creep in if we allow it).--Kotniski (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the one throwing around the puppetry insinuations, are you? I thought that was John Nevard, but I could be confused about who actually is making the insinuation, yes? ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy hates Google. He hates Wikipedia and has waged a bitter war against WP and our admins and editors. He's the perfect test case for BLP issues for, much as we all hate the guy, he's entitled to the same deference as other are. I have to ask; why??? Why add his name in here when it's only going to upset the man? (Or is this the true rationale? Reading John Nevard's comments above, I have to wonder). Honestly, showing a bit of humanity here, and a bit of decency will not hurt the project. You can quote policy until the proverbial bovines come home to try to shoehorn this issue into 'the rules' but it's not the right thing to do. Honestly, this is the man's REAL NAME and here we are, just so many pseudonymous accounts, bandying around his name like this. Not good - Alison ❤ 08:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is any of this relevant? There are thousands' of peoples' real names on WP - we don't ask all of their permission every time we use them (and we already mention DB in several articles, which is more likely to annoy him than this dab entry). Sure, we have to treat him fairly, but that doesn't mean adopting special rules just to accommodate what you think may be his personal wishes. If this is to be a test case for BLP, then let's get it right. Readers might come to this page looking for info on DB, remembering his surname but not his first name, for example (otherwise they would just do a search), and it is perfectly normal to link them to the information we have. If there's anything inaccurate or unfair about that information, then it shouldn't be in WP. But given that it's there, we must help readers to find it. There is a balance to be struck with BLP sometimes, readers against subjects. We must accept subjects' reasonable requests, but be sure not to be pressured by unreasonable ones.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely wasting my time trying to appeal to reason and to your sense of decency, aren't I? Because you're simply not listening. Nor, BTW, am I seeing an 'unreasonable request' here. Right now, I'm just seeing a bunch of editors who'd really like to stick it to Daniel Brandt. Like I said, it's not good at all & DB has made his position 100% clear on this without your need to refer to my interpretation of that. That's just lawyering over semantics - Alison ❤ 09:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you must have been through a lot over this issue, but please believe that not everyone is emotionally involved with it - I, for one, just want to see Wikipedia function as it should, without being unreasonable to people and without being bullied. I have no particular opinion or knowledge about DB, so I have no reason to either "stick it" to him or otherwise. I'm also not aware of his having addressed the issue of his appearing on this dab page - if he has, then let's hear his arguments, and act on them if they make sense, othwerwise politely decline. That's how BLP should work - listening, acting on reasonable requests, politely refusing to act on unreasonable (or unreasoned) ones.--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison rather says it all. Look, sorry for the directness, if I assume good faith, then I've no idea what is motivating this little crusade. However, we've been here too often before, and it isn't going to happen. So in the best traditions of wikipedia, take off the costume and step away from the building.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the crusading seems to be coming from both sides at least equally - the only reason it "isn't going to happen" is that there is a committed and zealous band (again with no clear motivation) continually forcing through one particular point of view (look at the history again - it's those that don't want DB mentioned who manipulated process to get the redirect deleted). There are obviously thousands of more important things to be doing on WP than getting this name on this dab page, but sometimes you have to stand up for certain principles. So OK, I'm walking away from this for now, but let the record show (he said pompously) that the day was won by those who shouted loudest, not by those who had reason on their side.--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When we are dealing with a real person being needlessly provoked by incessant attempts to stick one in his eye, wikilawyering about "principles" is not reason....it is just trolling dressed up.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion review would be the one which was decided against restoring the last version of the Daniel Brandt biography because the AfD close was technically correct, rather than because Brandt was actually non-notable, no? I'm not sure why this is always brought up by people seeking to remove all reference because he's worried that people reading his screeds against US intelligence agencies will think less of him because he burnt his draft cards and was a student politician. -- Nevard 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any substantive reasons for wanting to do this or are you just trying to score points with the viewing audience? I really don't care what he thinks or does. ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am pushed to see what the reason is for a well-sourced Brandt biography doing harm. Even more so a link to his notable activities on a disambiguation page. -- Nevard 12:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This horse is dead.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia is a revenge platform, go for it. If not, don't. Simple GTD 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Brandt/Archive_1"