Quoting Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 2007.11.15 16:43:27 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> scribbled 0 lines:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:30:27 +0000, "James
Farrar"
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Having an
article because they hate us is no better than not having
one because they hate us.
[[Daniel Brandt]], for instance...
(OK, technically we don't have an article on him not because he hates
us, /per se/, but because after 14 AFDs reasonable people got bored
with the circus and threw in the towel.)
Got good, non-trivial biographical sources about Brandt? I know
where to find deletion review.
Brandt's article was deleted for lack of sources.
Guy (JzG)
--
Just for those who weren't around for the Brandt articles: what Guy
is saying here is arrant nonsense. The Brandt article had dozens of
good sources stretching back decades. It was deleted out of a
combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEVILLECHAMBERLAIN.
To clarify - what actually happened was after repeated AfDs (13 of them) and
Brandt repeated harassment, the current clause in BLP that allows for deletion
for marginally notable people was added. A 14th AfD occurred. This AfD was
closed with a "complex merge" attempting to preserve as much of the articles
material as possible while respecting a possible privacy right for Brandt.
Now my editorializing: It is clear that if Brandt were not Brandt it
would have
been almost certainly kept. As far as I can tell, there have been exactly two
cases where the community has been willing to delete an article of a willing
public figure; Daniel Brandt, and Seth Finkelstein. In both cases, there was
not a clear consensus in the AfD, both had a DRV and the response in the DRVs
in both cases was more or less "we're sick of this. enough". However,
there was
not a lack of sources.
Now, as an aside can we please discuss this rationally without insulting each
other and making Hitler comparisons?