Daniel Brandt

Regular DRV closer's comment: Please do NOT snowball this. Doing so has been objected to. Let it run, and we'll see where we are after a few days. GRBerry 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since it is being endorsed my many - don't close and relist without consensus--Doc^g 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural question: Are we deciding whether the article should be deleted, or whether we are endorsing this particular deletion of it? If it's the former, why aren't we doing it on AfD? Some votes may be different in that case. Zocky | picture popups 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. It is deleted, we are deciding whether it should stay so. That's all.--Doc^g 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One interpretation of the deletion log is that it was deleted under the WP:IAR policy. Whether we are better off with or without the article is relevant to deletions under that policy. An alternative interpretation is that it was deleted under WP:CSD#G10/WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, paragraph 2, which says "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion". Under this interpretation also, opinions about the content of the article are also relevant. I hope this helps frame the discussion. GRBerry 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of DRV isn't to establish whether an article should be kept. It's to decide whether a particual admin action was executed properly. It's more like RFC than like AFD. Trying to push content decisions through DRV damages its function, i.e. acting as a check on admins (which we used to handle through wheelwarring before DRV existed). Zocky | picture popups 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it deleted? The consistent consensus has been to keep it in the past and so it should be at least visible while we decide at afd, SqueakBox 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Talk:Daniel Brandt (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Daniel Brandt|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)

• Page was speedy deleted on 07:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?"
• Pages talk page was deleted on 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) by Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) with a deletion summary: "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Do you people use common sense at times? We are not obliged to do this nor are we proveyers of knowledge"
• Yanksox (talk · contribs · logs) deleted his/her own talkpage on 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) with a deletion summary: "My, My. Hey, Hey / Won't you let me burnout or fadeaway?"[reply]

I do not believe any of that is a speedy deletion criteria to delete Daniel Brandt.

--Cat out 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion this is long overdue. We are a serious encyclopedia and we need to rise obove the silliness of this tiff. He doesn't want an article, and he isn't (very) notable. He can be mentioned on the various pages about the activities he is involved in, that's a much better solution. Honestly, whilst we may not like this guy, enough is enough - he's got a point, our biographies on people who are not public figures have rel-life implications. Would deleting this this set a precedent, and lead to other demands?? Yes, and we'd be a better encyclopedia for it. Delete all less-notability bios if the subject is unhappy and the article no loss, and lets go back to creating great articles in all the meaningful areas where we are full of shit.--Doc^g 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I've awarded Yanksox an Ed Poor barnstar.--Doc^g 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting his interests over those of the encyclopedia and its industrious contributors would violate both the spirit of the banning policy to which he is currently subject, and the core principles of the project. If he's as reasonable as you say, unblock him and let him wage his own battle. —freak(talk) 21:29, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, in order that 400Kb of AfD argumentation need not take place. 400Kb of contributor effort that would be better expended writing articles – Qxz 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • False argument. If AFD argumentation could be converted into writing articles, we shouldn't have AFD at all - if anyone complains about their article being deleted, just tell them to shut up, and write more articles. I think it's pretty clear one of the reasons people were articles is that we do have a policy not to just delete them without process. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Daniel Brandt's significance isn't all that great, and respect for his privacy should take precedence, at least as long as he is still alive. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I've encountered too much correspondence dealing with issues surrounding the Biographies of Living persons. It has never made much sense that we apply this policy to most individuals but disregard them when it comes to Daniel Brandt. I believe there are countless more notable people with decidedly smaller or even non-existant articles. Bastique 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That we lack an article on X, who is notable, is not a reason to delete an article on Y, who is also notable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. You're right, that isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Similarly, this wasn't an encyclopedia article; it was a weapon in some people's private war with a vilified external force. When the formal rationality expressed on policy pages loses touch with the substantive rationality behind building this encyclopedia, we shouldn't be afraid to just do the right thing. --Robth^Talk 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, retrieving the article from Google cache shows that the article had thirty-two sources. While some of those weren't too specifically about Brandt, others were. He's easily notable, so his bullying aside, that article belongs here. This is not the same as the Brian Peppers case, where sources were thin to nonexistent. WP:BLP applies to unsourced information, not well-sourced information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; in the spirit of WP:BLP, "do no harm". Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion due to my own personal belief (admittedly unsupported by current policy) that in cases of unclear, ambiguous, or borderline notability we should respect subjects' wishes not to have articles about themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy we have a clear precedent that the subject's wishes should be taken into account in cases of marginal notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke (I knew that would come in handy).--Doc^g 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion It's true that the WP:CSD may not have been met specifically, and that's not something that should happen casually, but this was clearly a proper example of WP:IAR to do the right thing. This guy isn't really notable, and if, after he dies of old age, we revisit the matter and decide he actually is/was, then he can be re-added. There's nothing _that_ urgent about having an article about him in the meantime. The wiki isn't going to burn down. It was a fine article, well cited, and it's still there in the logs. I don't think his bullying should be rewarded either, but perhaps the best revenge is living well in the meantime. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; If he's notable at all, he's just notable for being notable. Let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I wish I'd done this a year ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Wizardman 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion He's not really notable, no real reason to have this article.Lkinkade 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I say endorse deletion and someone hurry up and emergency desysop Yanksox for apparently going mad and acting without any deletion policy basis? Maybe just deleting the Brandt article would be regarded as mere rougeness, but the deletion of the user page etc. appears to demonstrate this was Yanksox's explosive departure from the wiki, or something to that effect. I'm happy to be proven wrong, however. - Mark 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Upon review, I tend more towards to overturn on this. I am not obsessed with process or whatever, but Deletion Review is not AfD. We are supposed to be examining the merits of the deletion by Yanksox, which was clearly unsupported by deletion policy. I feel this should be undeleted and sent to AfD (or have the WP:OFFICE folks step in and make an executive decision). - Mark 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the use of administrator tools/access on behalf of banned users has, in the past, resulted in emergency desysopping, though I do not believe anybody here is actually recommending that, so let's not mock that suggestion until it actually arises. —freak(talk) 21:11, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I have yet to see anybody explain why Brandt is notable in the first place. - jredmond 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the article? —freak(talk) 17:32, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse. Good job, Yanksox. – Chacor 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Wizardman 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Process wasn't followed, and the article was kept through numerous AfD debates earlier. While the subject's notability is fairly marginal, plenty of other people with higher notability, including famous comic book artist John Byrne, have made similar demands, which are likely to get more strident given this precedent. And isn't Paris Hilton also just notable for being notable? Should we delete her too? *Dan T.* 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact afd has failed to delete this just shows what a busted flush it is. And Paris Hilton is a very notable hotel, so I see no comparison.--Doc^g 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Doc, but that argument is basically, "The rules won't let me do what I want, so the rules must be broken." Abeg92contribs 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and look into the wider problem of long-time users supporting unilateral actions like this one. Zocky | picture popups 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been a communist. Or was your intent something other than trying to menace folks for expressing an opinion? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about opinions, it's about imposing one's opinions on others. Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list. I have no involvement and little interest in the drama surrounding Brandt, but I care a lot about seeing things done right. People regularly (and generally wrongly) accuse admins of acting like they hold a sceptre, not a mop, and I'm against anything that reinforces that notion. If this is so clearly a correct decision, Yanksox and the commenters above shouldn't have trouble getting an AfD consensus for it. William Pietri 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment it is the arguments like of the last two users that have almost driven me to leave wikipedia. Total introspective focus, the only concern being "have the internal rules been followed?" - "are some wikipedians getting too much power?" "is the structure/community etc. being disrespected?". I'm afraid I'm getting sick of such myopic navel-gazing. We are a great encyclopedia - we are one of the top ten websites in the whole world. We are a resource for all humanity - not just a trade union for wikipedians, or an experiment in on-line democracy. We have a global reach and a global responsibility, and yes, we can really really hurt people in the real world. Does carrying on this petty tiff with one individual make for a gear encyclopedia? No. Is his article critical to an encyclopedia? Absolutely not. Are we better without it? Probably. Should we consider the wishes of borderline non-entities who don't like having articles? Yes, we don't leave our humanity at the door. With great power comes great responsibility. And if we delete 1,000 Brandts we will not be weaker. Ignore all the rules - says it well "if the rules stop you improving Wikipedia" then IGNORE THEM. We are bigger than rules and petty powergames - we are not a club that concentrates on in-house politics, protocols and pecking orders. Let's rise above it and be great. Lift your sights people.--Doc^g 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, we're all working for improving Wikipedia. It's just that some of us think that a transparent process is more likely to achieve that than unilateral actions by people who think they know better than others. Zocky | picture popups 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the world looks in at Wikipedia, it is not our transparent processes that impress them. Think bigger.--Doc^g 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to improve Wikipedia, not the world's opinion of it. Even if this particular deletion improves the outside impression of Wikipedia in the short run, the idea that admins can unilaterally delete articles they don't like will make the encyclopedia (and the impression) worse in the long run. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc. I actually don't care much about the rules as such; I'm a big fan of IAR. I look at our rules as our ever-changing expression of how to make this enterprise work. They're the tail, not the dog. What I do care about is fairness, and the appearance of fairness. That matters because it's vital for the trust that an encylopedia needs from both readers and contributors. Were Yanksox doing this as a deliberate, thoughtful action that he were willing to defend and drive consensus around, I'd probably let it go. But his disappearance in a puff of drama suggests that even he knows it was an abuse of power. The end does not justify the means. William Pietri 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. A notable person and the cached page on Google looks encyclopedic enough. Removing the page just because the subject doesn't want it here sets a disturbing precedent for others. --Dookama 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I honestly wonder why there hasn't been any thread on WP:ANI about this yet, why there's no wheel-war going on and why the consensus on this seems to be quite clear on this (until now, at least) all of a sudden. Not that I think that's a negative thing of course, but it just strike me as odd. I don't have a strong opinion on the DRV itself either way, although process shouldn't be ignored like that, IMHO. If process doesn't work, {{sofixit}}, but don't just ignore it. --Conti|✉ 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, it was restored out-of-process while this DRV was ongoing by Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and redeleted by Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). – Chacor 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • How was Bumm13's restoration of the article "out-of-process"? May I refer you to the Undeletion policy which states "If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting." Bumm13 wasn't even given time to blank the article, if that was his intention. - Mark 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, so much for that. To my defense, I started writing that comment before the article got undeleted/redeleted. Maybe an WP:ANI thread was started by now. :) --Conti|✉ 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - good call. Firstly, with this gone this odious individual might actually shut up. Secondly, I just don't think he's notable. What's he done? A bit of web activism that everyone will have completely forgotten about in ten years? The odd repulsive paranoid rant? Who cares? Looking at the google cached version the sources cited are either trivial, fail RS, are unrelated to establishing notability, or only mention Brandt incidentally. Doesn't seem notable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The article long ago stopped being about "encyclopedia", and turned into a spite-fence. This is a somewhat face-saving way to get out of a very bad situation, and going back to contention over it hurts *everyone* -- Seth Finkelstein 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia sometimes seems to me like a little kid yelling "I'll do it because I want to, but not because you tell me to." Just because Daniel Brandt wants the article deleted is not a good reason to keep it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it was deleted because little kids wanted to, not because Brandt told them to? Maybe I don't understand you correctly. —freak(talk) 17:31, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD It seems that the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and had survived eleven AfD nominations. I don't think it is appropriate to just ignore those discussions. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse per all above. Enough is enough here. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD'd. – Chacor 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse Regardless of the evilness of the subject, we should be the first to demonstrate WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. This is an encyclopedia on the web, not the web on an encyclopedia. We should focus on article people care about and leave documenting the lolzinternet to websites that don't care to be reliable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "dignity" you are implying (as suggested in the page to which you linked), that the article mocks or disparages Daniel Brandt, could you give an example? —freak(talk) 17:59, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Long overdue, it's time that we moved on ages ago. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion and keep article. I agree in principle with the notion that borderline bios may be deleted on the subject's request. As someone who was familiar with Brandt's work before I ever saw his article on Wikipedia, I simply do not agree that he meets those criteria -- even less so now that his activism (inluding, whether we like it or not, his Wikipedia criticism) has been covered in many notable publications with wide circulation, online and offline (the article had 33 references, many of them to reliable secondary sources). Whatever criteria we define for "borderline" notability, they need to be fairly and consistently applied. If this article is supposed to be the measure of such a set of criteria, too many other articles will be deleted. Moreover, the abuse of process in this particular case will embolden those who confuse self-righteousness with reason. This deletion seems more like an emotional backlash than a rational evaluation of the facts to me, and as such, brings us dangerously close to ochlocracy as an editorial principle. This article should be undeleted so a proper deletion debate can take place rather than an angry shouting match.--Eloquence* 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion here and elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted For pete's sake, I go one place to voice deletion, somebody closes that, I go another, that one is closed by time I hit the save button. I hate process, but we need to delete this and stop the wheel warring now...so leave this review open for 24 hours at least then snowball it.--MONGO 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's okay to speedy-close it, but only after you have got your two cents in? —freak(talk) 18:01, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of article itself, but I'd much rather see a redirect to Google Watch then a salt. Just as long as this is NOT WP:SNOW'd then do whatever you want with the space.--Wizardman 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing vote for now.[reply]
• Overturn Speedy deletion is designed for uncontroversial articles, this quite obviously does not fit that category. Most of the "endorse" votes here seem to actually be "delete" votes by people who don't understand the difference between AfD and DRV. If this goes to AfD, I may well vote to delete it, but this isn't the place for that discussion. --Tango 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on principle. Stop wheel warring, please. While I do believe that this fails WP:BLP and have commented to that effect in the 12th AFD [1] I do not approve of this administrative tug-of-war. This was an improper speedy deletion and should be discussed at length (without early closure) on the Articles for deletion page, not here. (jarbarf) 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and list if you want to. Out of process speedy kamikaze delete. Abeg92contribs 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)![reply]
• Question Would it be possible to discuss the matter without edit warring over whether this should be at DRV or AfD or whether this should be speedily closed or not? --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn. Leaving aside entirely process issues - which are significant and which deeply vex me, for example the apparent trend of some people to just keep AfDing and deleting pages until they get the result they want, or having an AfD on an already deleted page, or Yanksox's two deletions (which are in no wise covered by CSDs and an obvious abuse of deletion policy) - Brandt is notable, and has been notable for a long time. He's been covered by the press time and again, and not just for his political activism, or his anti-Google activism, or his anti-Wikipedia activism, or his intelligence agency database stuff... any one of which would meet WP:BIO's primary criterion: "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." These are all credible arguments which have swayed multiple AfDs to keep the article (I would say how many, but Yanksox, y'know, deleted Talk:Daniel Brandt). DRV is supposed to be about whether process was followed, and not about being a more deletion-happy AfD. Process was manifestly not followed. --Gwern (contribs) 17:26 23 February 2007 (GMT)
• Overturn I am human and I am objective. A hassle, is not enough reason to delete this article. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted yes process was abused, yes this was not a valid CSD, the result however is appropriate. Regardless of brandt's supposed notability, his article is a perfect example of selective application of policy. For fucks sake he's been trying to get this article deleted for what 3 years now... and only now are we finally letting it go? If he wasnt a critic of wikipedia his OTRS complaint would have been handled with an article deletion after his first complaint! Time to grow up folks, regardless of your personal opinion of the man, he has a very valid right to have his article deleted.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect example of what? Policy should not be selectively applied. —freak(talk) 17:34, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I think he clearly meets WP:BIO, stories mostly about him have been written by multiple publications. I thought we didn't delete articles by request of the subject, we only deleted them if they actually didn't meet our inclusion guidelines. --W.marsh 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Are we really missing anything by no longer having an article about Daniel Brandt? Do Encarta or Encyclopædia Britannica have an article about him? It'll be easier for all of us if we keep the article deleted and stop arguing about it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia though.--Wizardman 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need to resort to strawmen arguments. Britannica will never have individual articles detailing each and every one of the hundreds upon hundreds of different Pokemon characters out there either. Here we should be discussing whether policy was correctly applied, not what paper encyclopedias are capable of providing. (jarbarf) 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had a copy of Britannica handy, I'd research this estimate, but I'm willing to guess that fewer than one percent of us have made a major contribution to an article which would be found in any other encyclopedia, anywhere. If that is a criteria for deletion, I might as well not be here, as the record would show I have no useful knowledge to contribute. —freak(talk) 17:53, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist This whole process stinks. Let an AfD run its proper course. I, too, share the concerns expressed by others about overzealous admins and the importance of transparency. --ElKevbo 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What in the hell is with all these WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes by established editors? A nice chunk of the !votes have no explanation for them, this isn't a tally. It's actually quite sickening to see this... I don't mind people voting the way they wish, but come on, give reasons for your stance.--Wizardman 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Yes, this was out of process and has caused all sorts of ruckus. But we're now faced with the question of whether we should have an article on Daniel Brandt or not. In my opinion, we shouldn't because he marginally notable and the cost/benefit of the article is too high. We shouldn't delete articles solely because the subject doesn't want it, but we also shouldn't keep articles for this reason. Let's put this behind us and work on one of the other 1.5 million articles. ChazBeckett 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What cost of ours would be recouped by deleting it? None, whatsoever. —freak(talk) 17:55, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that's not really what I meant by cost/benefit analysis, but I get what you're saying. While the article exists, there will be endless AfDs/DRV and other deletion discussions involving dozens of editors about this one article. The benefit of keeping the article is minimal due to Brandt's minimal notability. ChazBeckett 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, due to the number of other articles in which his name is prominently mentioned, which would have been easier to enumerate prior to the systematic de-linking I've witnessed just minutes after the deletion. —freak(talk) 18:07, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
      • In fact I've recently been questioned about this on my talk page. What I'd like to ask is how he can be worthy of mention in so many articles (despite sneaky efforts to hide that fact), but not worthy enough for an article for said links to point to? —freak(talk) 18:18, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
        • Brandt is well known within the Wikipedia community and thus is mentioned in Wikipedia articles disproportionately to his actual notability. ChazBeckett 18:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Take two steps back and look at this. It's ludicrous from any angle other than from the roll of eternal role of bureaucratic red-tape. Process rightly ignored. --Mus Musculus 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Borderline notability, not worth the trouble. If things change in the future we can create a new bio. As for the process, sometimes being bold and ignoring the rules helps the encyclopedia. I think this is such a case. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've erred on the side of recklessness, not boldness. A bold action would have been to reduce the article to a stub if in fact it ran afowl of WP:BLP, which has not been satisfactorily asserted. —freak(talk) 18:20, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. On principle. Hey, we gave the benefit of doubt for GNAA and went through AfD, right? Never mind we were a bit hasty closing that and a bit fuzzy on DRV, those were just small details - but speedy-deleting this whole thing just doesn't do, unless you dictate that exact same standard everywhere else, all the time. People, if you're saying "well, the end result is the same thing" - that's not the point; we need to follow the procedures, if only in general terms. Do you really want to generalise "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?" as "CSD G13: Too much red tape, let's just delete damn thing because I say so" (with the corresponding Speedy Undeletion criteria "Damn, are you on crack? Let's keep this anyway because I say so.") Arbitrariness begets arbitrariness... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Why has this been deleted? SqueakBox 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn.

1. The subject of the article meets every notability guideline.
2. This sets a very bad precedent for others who dislike their articles.
3. The disregard for process exposes the deletionist slant of the recent speedy deletion plague.
4. The disregard for process exposes flaws in the even more problematic deletion review process, where an article with 32 references is not even available for editors to review while discussing the DRV.
5. I am personally very tired of having to respond to the whims of admins who make unilateral decisions like this. It is a gross circumvention of consensus-based process.
6. Anyone who thinks this is going to stop Daniel Brandt from trolling Wikipedia is living in a dream world. Now that his life's work has been rendered essentially worthless by content aggregation sites like Google and collaborative databases like Wikipedia, this is his raison d'être. The only reason he is not going to object to the lack of transparency in this case is because it's going his way.

I personally feel that any article with an assertion of notability and multiple citations should never be speedily deleted like this. This is a much larger issue than this specific article, and caving on this case is going to send us down a slippery slope. -- Jokestress 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't really get into this full length, but I'll try to get on IRC during a lecture. Yanksox 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of us do not have access to IRC, can you please make your comments on the talk page here instead? (jarbarf) 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, seems I won't be getting it during a lecture anyways, I can't connect. I'm going to be out tonight and passing in papers for my passport so I most likely won't be around till tomorrow afternoon (EST). Yanksox 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: We're all wasting time here when we could be doing something, anything, more productive. -- Heligoland 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Utterly, horrifically out-of-process deletion. The fact that people are endorsing the deletion when the whole purpose of DRV is to judge the deletion process is incredibly disturbing. Subject meets all notability guidelines. Article has survived something like 12 AfDs. The wishes of the subject are completely and utterly irrelevant. jgpTC 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And support ban for Yanksox, given his highly insulting deletion summary "Are you people even human?". jgpTC 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Un-huh, if you want to ban me, go to arbcom. Yanksox 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article Process wankery (not a typo) aside, this article should be deleted. Of the "33 sources," except for the ones concerning his opposition to the Vietnam War, only three of them were independent, reliable and had him as their subject. I could not check the earlier articles about his anti-war protests, but they do not appear to focus primarily on him either and, anyway, no one seems to think he is a notable war protestor, just one of many. The three sources make him borderline notable, so the article is optional. Given that, we should both avoid the WP:SELF-type problems here and defer to the subject's wishes (whatever we think about him). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - I don't endorse any wheel war, but this article should have been deleted a long time ago. --BigDT 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the admin who blocked the page and deleted the talk page is the one who should be up in front of the arbcom. This is the worst single thing I have ever seen on wikipedia, it is a quite appalling defiance of wikipedia process, SqueakBox 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is a disgrace to itself at times. Nothing is written in stone, hell that's the whole purpose of this thing, it lives and changes. Go ahead, take me to arbcom if it gives you some closure. Yanksox 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as this sets a bad precedent and I think a lot of people here are just deleting it to get Brandt off of our backs. He is notable; end of story. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear lord, when were we at war? This is pathetic, there is nothing to be proud of and everything to be ashamed of. Yanksox 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Absolutely. The article should be reviewed and then deleted or not. To dlete and review is shameful and disres[pects those of us who have legitimately worked on making it into a good article. Doubtless George W. Bush will be next, SqueakBox 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • What the heck are you even reading here? Where did I mention a war? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - Advertising, subject not notable, does nothing to further the encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact and we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot. To maintain this one article on a marginally notable person would require scores and scores of manhours from Jimbo on down. Therefore having this article is a net subtraction from the encyclopedia. Not worth it. Herostratus 18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man-months have been spent building the article and rigorously sourcing every statement therein. The path of one man's least resistance is a slap to another's face. —freak(talk) 21:16, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Can somebody please explain me why the regular AFD process is not used and why the page is blanked during this review? Andries 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems to me that, as it stands, there is not going to be a consensus here. As I see it, most of the people voting endorse deletion are doing so because they feel that the article was not sufficiently notable to justify a place on Wikipedia, which is a very valid argument. Moving over to those that are voting overturn, a fair proportion are doing so on the basis that the article should only be deleted under the proper process otherwise a bad precedent is set, something I am inclined to agree with. In my personal opinion, I think the best way to stop taking up a whole lot more of our valuable time on this argument would to be restore the article and then re-list it on articles for deletion. That way we could all discuss the actual article rather than the circumstances surrounding it. Feel free to disagree with me, but I just wanted to make the suggestion. Will (aka Wimt) 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) That was already tried, but resulted in more wheel warring and wikilawyering. We need a discussion on the article, not the process. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone needs to put that in big shiny letters at the top. If you read the description of what this should be about at WP:DRV, then most of these comments are invalid. Trebor 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm revoking your WikiLawLicense :-). You can pretend this dicussion is at Wikipedia: WTF should we do about the Daniel Brandt article? if it makes you feel any better. I would have preferred that this discussion take place at AfD too, and the admins who are wheel warring about this should be censured. But the important thing is to actually have the dicussion, rather than to nitpick about proper forum questions. WP:NOT a bureaucracy and WP:IAR are of particular importance in cases like this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any consensus can be reached when half the people are commenting on the content and the other half on the process. Trebor 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Why is this being done this way? Lets not set a bad precedent.--Tom 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, made out of process, under no valid CSD. Αργυριου (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion for reasons above. Jonathunder 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wow, I never thought I'd be invoking WP:IAR, but I am. Taking a strictly positivist approach, I'd have to say that Brandt is notable under WP:BIO. But this article and the cloud surrounding it represent undue weight given to this issue, which is essentially a drawn-out self-reference. I agree with editors above, that this creates a precedent, but I disagree that it's necessarily a bad precedent. It's incredibly narrow in application, and would prevent a distortion of the material in the encyclopaedia: process must serve the content. — mholland 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused. Are we supposed to be discussing the content of the article, or the process by which it was deleted? If the latter, then overturn and relist on AfD, as this was an abuse of administrator power. —Psychonaut 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We should be discussing the article. The place for discussing allegedly rogue admins is either Request for comment or the arbcom, SqueakBox 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article and check new users for Daniel Brandt sockpuppets. --Tontoncontintin 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — Tontoncontintin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The more interesting question is whose sockpuppet you are. – Steel 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Was Yanksox a Daniel Brandt sockpuppet? Inquiring Minds Want To Know!™ Αργυριου (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Only more interesting if Tonton is also a banned user. otherwise the Brandt sockpuppetry issue is more importna t as the contribs of banned users are subject to revert, SqueakBox 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I applaud Yanksox's bold action. This subject never met the first criteria of WP:BIO which is "multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person." There was only one referernce that used Brandt as a subject (from a San Antonio newspaper). Every other referernce made trivial mention of Brandt's anti-Wikipedia and anti-Google stance. It's well past the time where this article should have been deleted. It's also time that a look should be given at Brandt's community ban. One of the apologies for Wikipedia during the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy was that Seigenthaler could have just removed the vandalism. Brandt hasn't been able to do this for over a year! Semi-notable people should have the right, due to privacy, to request their articles removed. Supposedly they have the ability through WP:OFFICE and I know that he's written letters to the foundation, so I wonder why this article was never deleted through that process. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who has had their article deleted? --Tom 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page wasn't deleted through WP:OFFICE because there was no good justification for so doing. Just because people complain does not mean their complaints or valid or that we must reply to them. Johntex\^talk 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malber, your claim is factually incorrect. There are several articles listed in the references of Daniel Brandt which are primarily about him, including about activities which have nothing to do with his conflict with Wikipedia. Αργυριου (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one uses Brandt as a primary subject. The rest mention him in one or two paragraphs. WP:BIO requires multiple. Add to that the subject has repeatedly requested through several channels including the foundation that this article be deleted, the action of an admin to speedy it is righteous, though long overdue. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at AFD - seriously out of process. Deletion review is about process, not the article itself. Process was not followed. Everyone arguing about the article would have their chance at AFD, as it is, people who aren't admins don't get to see the article, so are seriously handicapped in the argument. When people could see the article, it survived quite a few AFDs. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - This is a valid article and there it should be kept. Beyond that, deleting it in this particular manner was disruptive. The person who did so should be warned against similar behavior in the future. serve a one month block for their disruptive deletion as well as for their incivil comments here on this thread. Johntex\^talk 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why people make ridiculous comments like that when they know it's not going to happen. – Steel 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They are very angry. WP:TIGERS Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel, If you are so confident about that then why bother commenting? Clearly Yanksox should serve a block for disruption to the project and incivility to the community. Johntex\^talk 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocks are preventative, not punative. Blocks require warnings, not just blocking people. Let's get the WP:MASTODONS under control, here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many endorsements of his actions, so disruption is the wrong word to use. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is clearly disruptive, this action and subsequent DRV has distracted quite a few editors from editing, which is the definition of disrtuption. That some have endorsed it does not lessen the disruption. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

No one is forcing anyone to come comment here. How is it disruptive exactly? Why is it so many endorse? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion - The deletion was completely against procedure, an article this controversial should never be speedied, or even Prod'd, but should always go to AfD. Just because one admin gets fed up with following the rules doesn't mean that he can do what he wants. Instead I think it means that he should no longer be an admin, since I don't know how the community is supposed to trust him anymore. --Maelwys 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Tango. Speedy deletion is not appropriate in cases like this. TacoDeposit 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list on AfD. Speedy deletion is absolutely not appropriate for cases like this, and the speedying of this article was a serious abuse of admin powers which I hope will meet with an appropriate response from the ArbCom. However, I do think there's a good case for deleting the article - I support taking it to AfD. -- ChrisO 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - This is silly. A very valid use of WP:IAR, IMO. Marginal notability, and the person in question objects to the article. Just, let it go already. FCYTravis 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it were that simple. WP:IAR can be used both ways and this clealry wont dioe down whatever happens for a long while, SqueakBox 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's so straight forward, you should be able to convince an AFD. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per the many AfDs. (edit conflict) -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Do you think the deletion of this page will stop DB from outing us on his website? If so, keep it deleted; if not, why would deletion/undeletion matter? Scobell302 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Eloquence. The question should never be BLP concerns; if there are some, we can delete the libelous statements and start over. I see no libel on this article, and notability has been asserted. Ral315 » 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge with Brian Peppers and GNAA to create a new super article entitled "WHEEL WAR... ON WHEELS!". No, but seriously. It's absolutely impossible for the Wikipedia community to look at this article objectively anymore. Any further discussion on the matter will be just like this one — mindless application of BLP, IAR, ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT, ITSURVIVEDAFDABILLIONTIMES. Also it should be noted that this is yet another instance of an article being speedied inappropriately and getting an Afd debate at DRV instead of a DRV debate at DRV. --- RockMFR 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While deleting something via IAR instead of AFD isn't that big of a deal, throwing up all of these bureaucratic roadblocks to restoring it is. Yes, admins can take unilateral action, but only if not opposed by other admins. When someone undid it, it should have gone to AFD - which probably should speedy keep it, given the absurd number of past nominations. You don't get to keep gaming the system until you manage to catch enough people unaware to make it slip through. -- Jake 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The action was entirely out of process and completely uncalled-for regardless of whether the article should have actually been deleted. The article has gone through many Article for Deletion debates and survived. Who entitled YankSox to decide all that didn't matter? And why is he getting barnstars for this? There are many deserving people on Wikipedia who have yet to receive any sort of decent commendation, and yet rouge YankSox – clearly desiring to go out with a bang – gets hosannas all around. I am shocked and, in some ways, embarrassed; situations like these are precisely what pit some members of the Wikipedia community against admins. Sorry, YankSox, I'm not falling for it; I refuse to accept your unilateral action, incivility, and wheel-warring – let alone reward you for it. -- tariqabjotu 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you do not know the meaning of the Ed Poor barnstar. Ed Poor is the administrator who once deleted the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page, causing a severe server slowdown for several minutes, and ending up with the creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion after the ensuing discussion. --cesarb 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the man is barely notable. This man isn't George W. Bush or Tony Blair or even Vanna White, he's just a guy who got a bit of press for doing stuff. He's not very important or worthy of coverage, and the whole privacy issue just exacerbates the situation. The trouble isn't worth it for someone as minor as him. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to expand on it, RockMFR makes a great point: intentionally or accidentally, we are now inherently biased in one way or another towards Mr. Brandt. While he's trying to campaign against Wikipedia's current practices, he's upsetting the contributors. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you believe deleting this article will change any of that? —freak(talk) 21:37, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • Disagree. I imagine almost every UK editor has an even stronger opinion on Tony Blair, but that doesn't mean they can't keep that bias at bay while editing that article; similarly, just because many may have opinions about Brandt, that doesn't mean the community can't be trusted to make decisions about his article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Gross misuse of speedy deletion, which is not to be used for deleting controversial articles, especially not those that have already failed an AfD. --Delirium 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Even more especially those which have failed an Afd 8 or so times. The fallout from this is a matter of time, I believe this a case of admin abuse that we need to take to rthe arbcom within a week, SqueakBox 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 21:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Per DocG. Notability marginal. Subject strongly objects. Frankly what's the point of devoting any more time to this page when this encyclopaedia still has vast and significant areas of knowledge which are barely covered? --Folantin 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I would prefer the article to be there and he has sufficient notability to merit it, but not sufficient to retain it at all costs. All factors have to be taken into account and one of them is that the subject seems to have experienced long term aggravation. I don't think it's going to harm wikipedia to let this one go for now, and will be to its credit as a mature decision. Tyrenius 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think deleting the article will stop him from attacking Wikipedia and its contributors, I think the joke would ultimately be on you. Even he did completely disappear, it disgusts me that you would use Wikipedia as bargaining chip in that manner. —freak(talk) 21:35, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you're talking about apart from some wild assumption. I'm not concerned with his actions: I'm concerned with ours. He's welcome to carry on attacking. I can't say I've had any sleepless nights over it. Kindly withdraw your rash comments. Tyrenius 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I don't understand. What "costs" (associated with keeping the article) are you referring to, if not the casualties resulting from Brandt's incessant complaints, trolling, baseless legal threats, and cyberstalking of a few dozen Wikipedia personnel in various external sites? Why would you "welcome" him to continue in this manner (although he undoubtedly will, regardless of what you and I have to say about it)? Your reply upsets me to an even greater degree. Please clarify what financial or moral expenses you feel would be spared by deleting this article. —freak(talk) 22:19, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The only reason why this was deleted is because Yanksox wants to tell the whole world that he's leaving. I would have said endorse otherwise, but misusing your tools and running away, and especially going behind the community's back is also wrong. It's a well-established article, we've put in a lot of time on it and consensus has been reached that this guy's clearly notable. There's this thing, you know... it's called the community. Let's do this the right way. This is not how we do things. —Pilotguy push to talk 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an out of process A7 - it most definitely expressed notability. Whether or not it meets BLP, etc., is all stuff that should be discussed at an AFD, but having an admin suddenly delete it out of the blue without any prior warning that I can see is a bad scene. (As we can plainly see.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per results of the recent AfD. --Elonka 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What recent afd. All the afd's have striongly opposed deletion so if you want to follow that....SqueakBox 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The one that was closed early out of pro-arghhhhhhhh... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Doc Glasgow, Moreschi, Malber, and Herostratus. I don't give a monkey's what Brandt does, but I do care what we do. Somebody said something once about making the internet not suck, no? An unsucky encyclopedia, confronted by a very minor figure who really didn't want to be included, wouldn't include them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn but list at AFD - process is important! Yanksox must have gone postal or something; we need to talk about this before it was deleted. DRV is not the place to discuss wether an article should be deleted. PTO 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to say this, since I think this whole thing is silly, but process is important. speedy relist; not a CSD. To all the endorse !voters, DRV is _not_ AFD. Go !vote delete in the AFD if you must; I certainly will. But I will not endorse this egregious violation of process and policy. As for the "no consensus to relist"? Consensus can sometimes be wrong. --Random832 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I think the only reason Brandt had an article is because he criticized Wikipedia, not because he's notable in his own right. Neutrality issues are even worse than Bogdanov Affair. Steps taken by Yanksox are regrettable but don't require AfD review. Ashibaka (tock) 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What? You mean one editor can unilaterally decide to delete an article with all opposition stonewalled. is there a new policy I am missing? SqueakBox 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you care to look through this page you'll see considerably more than one editor endorsing deletion. Tyrenius 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats not the poit. We are entitled to an afd, SqueakBox 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was the point you made. The DRV seems to be doing a more thorough job than the AfD did. Tyrenius 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I think this is starting down a slippery slope of removing any content that a particular subject objects to even if it is verifiable just because it seems to be too much work to maintain the article. Maybe Brandt doens't merit an article, but the reasons for unilaterally deleting this are all wrong. I also want to tip my hat in advance to whomever decides to tackle closing this DRV. Whatever the outcome they are pretty sure to take flak.--Isotope23 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, from the looks of things, it's going to get set back to AfD as a no consensus, which is where it probably belonged in the first place. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Keep deleted. The project is not worse off without the article, and it's time we moved on. We've grown past this. The process was less than optimal but the result is favorable. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The project is considerably worse off without this article, SqueakBox 22:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it worse off? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly what I was going to say. If you have any reason other than "OMG can't give into pressure," let's hear it. If that's your argument, it doesn't hold water - we're an encyclopedia, not a battleground, and we absolutely must get past this silly, juvenile "John Doe doesn't want an article SO HE MUST HAVE ONE" mentality. FCYTravis 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created this article? What has changed. Daniel got you scared? SqueakBox 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Any particular reason? —freak(talk) 22:26, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Heligoland. 1ne 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of disruption and fallout I for one will not edit wikipedia except with this issue from now on and urge others to do the same as long as wikipedia backs banned users over good faith users, SqueakBox 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]