Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)

Daniel Brandt

Per changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards, I request that the community expand the precedent of courtesy deletions to a slightly wider scope: these examples aren’t world leaders and both of them have expressed to me by e-mail that they would rather not be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Bear in mind that some of the information Wikipedia publishes about these people comes from small presses and date from an era before either this site or the Internet existed. To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet.

With respect for the editors who’ve contributed these pages, it’s always been my belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives.

I ask the community to replace these two pages with a template to the effect of “deleted per request of the article subject”, then Oversight the history and page protect, with equivalent action for the respective talk pages. I also ask we extend a similar courtesy in the future toward living persons who may be notable, but are neither celebrities nor criminals. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Daniel Brandt is notable per Wikipedia:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites much coverage of this nature in Daniel_Brandt#References. Furthermore, Daniel Brandt does not have any inherent WP:BLP problems that require deletion. It is not comprised primarily of unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, appears to be written from a neutral point of view, and does not exist primarily to provide publicity which is harmful to a living person, where the publicity was generated through no fault of the article's subject -- Daniel Brandt has intentionally become a public figure. John254 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John254. bogdan 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as every time before. Meets every relevant standard. We're an encyclopedia, not a charity case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the obvious reasons. Shawn K. Quinn 22:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep clearly notable, and as per prior AfDs. As per John254 Daniel Brandt has intentionally become, or tried his best to become, a public figure. He doesn't then get to control what kind of publicity he gets. As long as WP:NPOV is respected, and any contentious or negative content is sourced, wikipedia should have an article on this person. DES ^(talk) 22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]