Brandt's article deleted, undeleted, stubbed, ad infinitum..., The BLP war era continues Options

[Alex]

So it's gone now. Deleted by Yanksox, speedily endorsed by our friend Gaillimh. Three cheers all round? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[gomi]

Bravo. Now I want a box seat for the inevitable wheel war.

[Alex]

Bravo. Now I want a box seat for the inevitable wheel war.

It's currently being AfD'd, but I expect it'll produce a similar result.

[Somey]

...I expect it'll produce a similar result.

Similar = deleted, or similar = restored?

I think there's actually reason for optimism this time. Some of the "heavy hitters" are clearly fed up, and maybe this whole Fuzzy Zoeller business has affected their thinking somewhat - there's going to be a LOT of scrutiny of WP's BLP policies and procedures over the next couple of weeks, and deleting this now will help them enormously on that score.

I just wonder what we'll talk about here once that article is gone... Anybody know any good bran-muffin recipes? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Anonymouse]

Now it's on WP:DRV, and staying deleted. Here's a permalink, decide for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:l9nE4...lient=firefox-a

[taiwopanfob]

I think there's actually reason for optimism this time. Some of the "heavy hitters" are clearly fed up, and maybe this whole Fuzzy Zoeller business has affected their thinking somewhat - there's going to be a LOT of scrutiny of WP's BLP policies and procedures over the next couple of weeks, and deleting this now will help them enormously on that score.

Wales and company must be quite relieved that Wikipedia was not listed as a defendant. But I suspect that if one quietly asked the plaintiff it may have been more to do with not wanting to suffer the image of being the guy who takes on (and perhaps down) WP than any legal hand-waving about section 230.

Anyways, a reasonable prediction of the theory is a spike in AFD's for borderline bios begins soon. Definitive evidence being an WP:BLP edit to the effect of "subject deletion requests honored".

This is an excellent opportunity for Wales to actually assert some executive authority.

[No one of consequence]

Well, so far they're holding a clusterfuck over where the real clusterfuck should be held. The sleeper issue here is the super secret admins-only IRC channel. Can one deletion lead to 3 CFs on the same day? How about 4?
The third CF

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Well, so far they're holding a clusterfuck over where the real clusterfuck should be held. The sleeper issue here is the super secret admins-only IRC channel. Can one deletion lead to 3 CFs on the same day? How about 4?
The third CF

Wikipedia is living in interesting times, and I'm loving it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[thekohser]

This is an excellent opportunity for Wales to actually assert some executive authority.

Uh, oh. That's a surefire recipe for Mixed-signal-talky-out-of-one-side-of-my-mouth-but-me-do-different-thing-altogether-with-other-side-of-my-mouth Disease.

Please -- this is an excellent opportunity for Brad Patrick and the Board to grow some gonads and actually set a policy that is decidedly NOT of the typical knee-jerk variety!

I'm not holding my breath, though. That would subvert the power of the God-King, so it's not likely to happen.

Greg

[Alkivar]

Look Jimbo wading in is probably a bad idea... we all know a fiat declaration will not be a popular thing.

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

So best of luck to you DB... hopefully the status quo of delete... remains the status quo.

[anon1234]

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.

There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out.

This post has been edited by anon1234:

[a view from the hive]

The best thing that could happen is a public discourse at DRV (and not AFD) concludes with a keep deleted. the community at large (and quite a few of the admins) dont think the article is worth it.

Some likely voted delete/keep deleted in hopes they'd get off the hivemind, others because they feel brandt is non notable. Me its because i'm sick of seeing common sense fail to overcome the wiki-lawyering process.

While this is a solution to this article, it isn't a globally optimal solution. What this is, is an instance where sustained retaliation and pressure resulted in an article being removed. Most individuals who end up in Brandt's situation do not have the time or research ability to do this. A consistent policy that allows for intermediately notable people to opt-out of Wikipedia would be a fairer solution. While it would be difficult to craft, it would allow for more consistency in this current grey area. Wales shouldn't have to intervene every time in such situations nor should admins have to take on the risk of being very WP:BOLD as Yanksox did.

There should be a request for opt-out means which results in a way to confirm the request is authentic and then triggers an AfD. In that AfD people then argue whether or not the individual meets the higher degree of notability required in order to keep the article against the wishes of the article's subject. If a non-notable individual then becomes more public one can initiate another discussion of whether the individual is deserving of a Wikipedia bio. Thus integrating into the standard AfD policy framework a means of opting-out.

Well, it comes down to who actually would want to lookup info about Daniel. No offense, but I highly highly doubt Daniel's going to make Time or Fortune or any sort of public figure list anytime soon. The article was mostly kept because some people were strongly opposed to the tatics Daniel had used, and they wanted "revenge."

On the bright side, I think give it a couple more days and with the way it's going I can close the DRV as endorsed (it'd be too big of an uproar if I did it now and someone would likely wheel war over it...)

[LamontStormstar]

Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.

[Somey]

Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.

And don't forget he won the 1993 Texas Chili Cookoff in the Vegetarian Division. Hell, if it weren't for him, I'd still be using those awful dark red kidney beans...

[a view from the hive]

Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.

I guess your definition of "notable" is something other than mine. I don't consider that notable at all.

[Somey]

But what about the time in 1997 when he balanced 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose? That record lasted almost three years!

[a view from the hive]

But what about the time in 1997 when he balanced 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose? That record lasted almost three years!

Wikipedia tries to contain only factual information. Perhaps The Wikipedia Review should try the same (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Try the truth, it looks better (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

Try the truth, it looks better (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Do you have reliable sources that can verify that he didn't balance 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose?

Besides, if the truth looks better, how do you explain my driver's license photo?

Also, I'm concerned about the fact that Everyking seems to be voting to overturn the deletion. I can only assume our lack of positive Ashlee Simpson coverage has turned him against us.

[a view from the hive]

Try the truth, it looks better (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Do you have reliable sources that can verify that he didn't balance 14 Romanian gymnasts on the tip of his nose?

Besides, if the truth looks better, how do you explain my driver's license photo?

Also, I'm concerned about the fact that Everyking seems to be voting to overturn the deletion. I can only assume our lack of positive Ashlee Simpson coverage has turned him against us.

I believe the onus is on you to prove that he did not the contrary. One is innocent until proven guilty (we hope) and I think we can express the same to facts.

[the fieryangel]

Regardless of HOW the article was deleted, the fact that it was deleted doesn't really solve the problem. Daniel was slandered by months by Wikipedia and its editors. Just because they're yanking the article doesn't fix any of that.

If I were Daniel, I'd expect a public apology from Jimbo right now. And I'd also expect to receive some sort of settlement for damages.

So, I don't think that this really ends anything. It's just a step in the right direction.

[guy]

Wikipedia tries to contain only factual information.

{{source}}

On the contrary, it tries to contain only information verifiable from supposedly reliable sources. As the Daniel Brandt case shows, that's not the same thing.

Perhaps The Wikipedia Review should try the same

Special allowances are needed for Somey's sense of humour.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Wikipedia tries to contain only factual information. Perhaps The Wikipedia Review should try the same (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Try the truth, it looks better (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

One of the members of the ArbCom explicitly told me, on Fred Bauder's user talk page, that Wikipedia did not aim for the truth, but rather only verifiable material from what are euphemistically called reliable sources. Wikipedia aims to be the semi-official voice of the Establishment.

Incidentally -- and we should probably start a new topic for this -- Wikipedia's discouragement of Primary Sources reflects a growing sort of corruption in the academic world. I am told that there are now rules in place in many universities that papers submitted must significantly cite published Secondary Sources, which means that the student must demonstrably be reflecting views that have been certified as orthodox.

[thebainer]

Brandt's notable for mainly that Seigler(sp?) thing where Brandt found the guy's info.

I guess your definition of "notable" is something other than mine. I don't consider that notable at all.

There's a few things about Brandt that could be considered notable:

• was a draft resister who appealed his conviction and won;
• created NameBase;
• started Google Watch;
• exposed Brian Chase in the Seigenthaler controversy.

Note that I have no idea how rare the first thing actually is, I have no idea how many draft resisters were able to successfully appeal their convictions. Can anyone inform me?

Now, I'm a mergist; that is, I think that "while much information may warrant inclusion somewhere, very little of it probably warrants its own article." The main reason I hold this view is that one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia is the large number of short pages with little context. Many of them could be merged together, with no other changes, and become quite good articles because there would simply be more context to help understand the information.

You'll note that much of the stuff that could potentially be notable about Brandt is not really about him at all, but about something else: about conscription, about Google Watch, about the Seigenthaler controversy. So really, it should be entirely feasible to move all of the Google Watch information into Google Watch, move all of the Seigenthaler material into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and so on. The rest is mostly self-referential and can be discarded.

Now I don't care enough about Brandt to have followed the whole saga around the article, but can recall if a serious merge proposal has been put forward before?

[Somey]

I dunno, Stephen... There seems to be almost no point in discussing Wikipedia's notability standards (or whatever they're called) on an "external" forum like this. From an outside perspective, those standards are basically a joke. And it's not just me - there's a discussion about this on WikiEN-L going on right now, along with several articles on the subject in the press, etc...

Essentially, you've got exhaustively detailed articles about multiple Japanese anime artists and Silicon Valley video game designers and various people in various social movements whom I've never heard of, indeed whom hardly anyone outside of their immediate circles and fanbases have heard of. Meanwhile, I own three fine CD's by a now-defunct shoegazer band called An April March. I love this band, can't say enough good things about 'em. But there's no article on WP for them - I guess they're not "notable" enough, which I can certainly understand (they're hardly famous), but I can hardly condone it.

I just think WP'ers have got to get off their high horses, start thinking about these things in terms of real human and social impact, and stop acting like it's their God-given right to invade the privacy of whoever they please with amateur-written crap that anyone can vandalize at will, with only the flimsiest assurances imaginable that something will be done about it before those vandalizations get picked up by all the major search engines. Not to mention the fact that their actions (and inactions) represent a substantial risk to the entire concept of anonymous free speech on the internet, in general.

Nevertheless...

Note that I have no idea how rare the first thing actually is, I have no idea how many draft resisters were able to successfully appeal their convictions. Can anyone inform me?

As the WP article states, one of the first things Jimmy Carter did upon being inaugurated in 1977 was to sign an order providing amnesty to pretty much all Vietnam-era draft evaders, so if you include that, then pretty much all such convictions were overturned en masse. Assuming the rest of it is correct and Brandt's appeal was based on an argument that he should have been given a student deferment, that wasn't the least bit unusual either, prior to 1977. Nor was it unusual to see successful appeals based on various physical or mental ailments, family obligations, or war casualties already suffered by the same family (a la Saving Private Ryan).

So, after that you have Namebase and Google Watch (not to mention Wikipedia Watch) - both of which are interesting, if not "notable," websites - but as you've stated, the notability of the sites doesn't imply notability of the sites' creator. Particularly if that person hasn't shown a propensity for seeking personal publicity, either from the sites themselves or from the media in general.

Now I don't care enough about Brandt to have followed the whole saga around the article, but can recall if a serious merge proposal has been put forward before?

Yes, by Brandt himself. Perhaps that's rather suggestive...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[guy]

No doubt I'll be accused of partisanship, but it constantly amazes me when I have to add an article about yet another eminent but overlooked Methodist. None of them has ever had an AfD proposal, let alone delete, so nobody contests their notability once it's pointed out.

[Somey]

No doubt I'll be accused of partisanship, but it constantly amazes me when I have to add an article about yet another eminent but overlooked Methodist. None of them has ever had an AfD proposal, let alone delete, so nobody contests their notability once it's pointed out.

Whaddya mean, "partisanship"? Aren't all Methodists and Lutherans considered "notable" by default?

Baptists and Presbyterians, of course, should all have to undergo a thorough physical examination.

[Somey]

As predicted, the article's back, with the DRV closed by our very own User:Thebainer. But they're promising to "relist" it in a week's time, at which point the endless partisan bickering presumably starts all over again.

How do we proceed from here? There is no apparent consensus in this debate other than that if the article is to be deleted (and there is significant support for that outcome) it ought to be done properly, allowing sufficient opportunity for rational and reasonable debate. I note here that several editors have commented that while there seem to have been many previous debates about deleting this article, in reality, only one of them (the second) could really be considered to have resulted in a consensus (most were speedily closed for various reasons) - and that was November 2005; their point is that consensus can change, and may well have in that amount of time. This matter has certainly not been wanting for discussion, but it has been wanting for quality discussion.

I have concluded that the article should be listed at articles for deletion. The listing will not be speedily closed, it will be allowed to run its full course (as is the consensus of this debate). Following the suggestion of some editors here, the listing will not open immediately: I will open it in one week's time, to hopefully allow some of the dust to settle, and to allow all the arguments to be prepared properly and fully, and presented in a reasonable fashion. In the meantime the article will be undeleted. Editors should also feel free to submit alternative proposals (for example, proposals for merges) in the meantime.

Lucky for them there's copy 'n' paste! Otherwise they'd have to type those votes back in again from scratch!

Also, what really is the "proper" way to delete an article? Should one simply use the mouse to click on the "delete" link, or is it better to use the cursor and tab keys to set focus on that link, and then press the spacebar?

As I've often done, I just want to redundantly reiterate here once again that the only way the internal WP squabbling over this will ever stop is if the article goes away completely. Regardless of what anyone here says about it, there will always be sound moral justification for getting rid of this article, and little or no sound moral justification whatsoever for keeping it. To a large extent, this debate isn't ultimately about "content" or "notability" at all, or even about bad publicity or excessive internal squabbling. It's about morality, and the people voting to delete are the ones who are guided by their sense of morality - at least to a greater extent than the people who are voting otherwise. And sure, Daniel Brandt may be a mean ol' rotten SOB, but so are a lot of folks - and in my experience at least, they usually get that way because other people just won't let them get on with their lives in peace.

Anyhoo, morality isn't something you can just wish away. Some people have it, some people don't. The question is, which side is WP on?

(I mean, obviously we all know how most of us here are going to answer that one...)

We'll just have to see, I guess.

[Daniel Brandt]

The thing that strikes me about this DRV, as well as the one or two AfD debates on my bio that allowed some responses instead of getting summarily aborted, is that most of those who vote on the inclusionist side are Wikipedians I've never heard of. They come out of the woodwork just for me, and know nothing about me or the history behind my bio. It's a video game, and those who happen to jerk the joystick in the right direction at the right time see that there's this Big Thing going on, and waltz right in. It's not like they have any of their own interests at stake, apart from their little joysticks driven by their little brains.

That means I'll have to fight to have my biography deleted until the day I die. Every 6 months or so, I can take some satisfaction in knowing that many of those who bitterly fought me 6 months ago, now want to delete the bio. Then I have to concede that there's a bottomless pit of wacky Wikipedians who know nothing at all, and they keep coming at me in waves, and outvote the Wikipedians I've managed to wear down. So it starts all over again...

I predict that the upcoming AfD will be about 50/50, and the person closing it won't have the guts to delete on that basis. That's because there's a myth about "consensus" in Wikipedia, and "consensus" seems to be around 70 or 80 percent.

[badlydrawnjeff]

I'm pleasantly surprised, even if it's only because they're afraid given the ArbCom case in place.

It will be very hard for an administrator to close an AfD as delete given Wikipedia's basic "notability" standards. It will really be a test of wills.

[gomi]

Doc Glasgow has quit, citing in part the Brandt wheel war. See the Cabal Graveyard thread, or his departure note.

[thebainer]

As I've often done, I just want to redundantly reiterate here once again that the only way the internal WP squabbling over this will ever stop is if the article goes away completely. Regardless of what anyone here says about it, there will always be sound moral justification for getting rid of this article, and little or no sound moral justification whatsoever for keeping it. To a large extent, this debate isn't ultimately about "content" or "notability" at all, or even about bad publicity or excessive internal squabbling. It's about morality, and the people voting to delete are the ones who are guided by their sense of morality - at least to a greater extent than the people who are voting otherwise. And sure, Daniel Brandt may be a mean ol' rotten SOB, but so are a lot of folks - and in my experience at least, they usually get that way because other people just won't let them get on with their lives in peace.

If you read the rest of what I wrote, you'll realise that really the majority of people who actually expressed an opinion about the article were in favour of deleting it. Hardly anyone thought the article should be kept; the rest wanted the deletion overturned because it was "out of process". I hate the bureaucracy as much as the next man but there was no way to ignore them without starting another giant shitfight. This time there is a mandate for a full debate (which won't be speedily closed) and I think the consensus is moving towards deleting the article.

The thing that strikes me about this DRV, as well as the one or two AfD debates on my bio that allowed some responses instead of getting summarily aborted, is that most of those who vote on the inclusionist side are Wikipedians I've never heard of. They come out of the woodwork just for me, and know nothing about me or the history behind my bio. It's a video game, and those who happen to jerk the joystick in the right direction at the right time see that there's this Big Thing going on, and waltz right in. It's not like they have any of their own interests at stake, apart from their little joysticks driven by their little brains.

That's a fair assessment. Few of the "regulars" still want to keep the article. Also note that the vast majority of those in favour of keeping the article deleted were long-term users or admins.

I predict that the upcoming AfD will be about 50/50, and the person closing it won't have the guts to delete on that basis. That's because there's a myth about "consensus" in Wikipedia, and "consensus" seems to be around 70 or 80 percent.

I plan to close it. I seem to do fairly well at closing otherwise controversial debates and making the result stick. I deleted Gregory Lauder-Frost's article, for example, when the debate was split 50/50 on the numbers, and when there had been dozens of previous conversations that didn't get anywhere.

[a view from the hive]

I plan to close it. I seem to do fairly well at closing otherwise controversial debates and making the result stick. I deleted Gregory Lauder-Frost's article, for example, when the debate was split 50/50 on the numbers, and when there had been dozens of previous conversations that didn't get anywhere.

Good, glad to know I'm not the only one who can delete stuff and have it stick. I was actually going to go nuts about the closure of the DRV, I would have just said endorse and salted the earth.

[Daniel Brandt]

I plan to close it. I seem to do fairly well at closing otherwise controversial debates and making the result stick. I deleted Gregory Lauder-Frost's article, for example, when the debate was split 50/50 on the numbers, and when there had been dozens of previous conversations that didn't get anywhere.

That's good news. I might recommend that over the next six days, the deletionists can chip away at the article, sentence by sentence and footnote by footnote. It seems that some have already started doing this. By the time the AfD opens, it will be little more than a stub. Squeakbox and Jokestress will be all worn out, and no one else will care about one puny little article. The heavies who are almost deletionists on this article but don't want to get involved, might just watch from the sidelines, realizing exactly what's happening, and let it happen.

Trickle-down deletionism.

[Truth Man]

It's a video game, and those who happen to jerk the joystick in the right direction at the right time see that there's this Big Thing going on, and waltz right in. It's not like they have any of their own interests at stake, apart from their little joysticks driven by their little brains.

Dan, you just nailed in on the head. I couldn't agree more. I find this to be the most disturbing thing of all, and it is symbolized by Essjay.

[Somey]

It's probably pointless to discuss this like it's some sort of election, but after counting the votes, I came up with 76 endorsing deletion, and 111 to overturn. Of the 111, 7 explicitly indicated they would probably vote to delete on the subsequent AfD. So that's 83 votes to delete, and an unknown number to keep, but judging by what people were writing, I'd have to say the results will probably come out almost dead even... If I had to guess, I'd say there'll probably be a slim majority wanting to keep the thing, not that it should ever have to come to a vote in the first place.

Yanksox had the right idea - one of the few people there who did, and one of only a handful willing to act on that right idea.

The thing that strikes me about this DRV, as well as the one or two AfD debates on my bio that allowed some responses instead of getting summarily aborted, is that most of those who vote on the inclusionist side are Wikipedians I've never heard of. They come out of the woodwork just for me, and know nothing about me or the history behind my bio.

I bore this in mind while I was counting... I came up with just under 50 of the 111 whose names I actually recognized. Of course, I've never had an account on WP - I just read people's talk pages and such when there's a "problem." So I guess I'm not one to say, but it did look an awful lot like The Attack of the Jimbodrones to me too!

[Jonny Cache]

... slim majority ...

Good one !!!

So riddle me this:

How many votes in a slim majority ???

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

How many votes in a slim majority ???

One, although this time she's on my side. But she's clever (no one has ever accused her of not being clever - check the record). She knows when to take a back seat. Perhaps that should read, "She knows when to ostensibly take a back seat." We're not privy to all the emails flying around, and the possible backroom deals.

[a view from the hive]

How many votes in a slim majority ???

One, although this time she's on my side. But she's clever (no one has ever accused her of not being clever - check the record). She knows when to take a back seat. Perhaps that should read, "She knows when to ostensibly take a back seat." We're not privy to all the emails flying around, and the possible backroom deals.

Nothign flying around on the lists I get - not even the closed ones.

[everyking]

As I've often done, I just want to redundantly reiterate here once again that the only way the internal WP squabbling over this will ever stop is if the article goes away completely. Regardless of what anyone here says about it, there will always be sound moral justification for getting rid of this article, and little or no sound moral justification whatsoever for keeping it. To a large extent, this debate isn't ultimately about "content" or "notability" at all, or even about bad publicity or excessive internal squabbling. It's about morality, and the people voting to delete are the ones who are guided by their sense of morality - at least to a greater extent than the people who are voting otherwise. And sure, Daniel Brandt may be a mean ol' rotten SOB, but so are a lot of folks - and in my experience at least, they usually get that way because other people just won't let them get on with their lives in peace.

If you read the rest of what I wrote, you'll realise that really the majority of people who actually expressed an opinion about the article were in favour of deleting it. Hardly anyone thought the article should be kept; the rest wanted the deletion overturned because it was "out of process". I hate the bureaucracy as much as the next man but there was no way to ignore them without starting another giant shitfight. This time there is a mandate for a full debate (which won't be speedily closed) and I think the consensus is moving towards deleting the article.

The thing that strikes me about this DRV, as well as the one or two AfD debates on my bio that allowed some responses instead of getting summarily aborted, is that most of those who vote on the inclusionist side are Wikipedians I've never heard of. They come out of the woodwork just for me, and know nothing about me or the history behind my bio. It's a video game, and those who happen to jerk the joystick in the right direction at the right time see that there's this Big Thing going on, and waltz right in. It's not like they have any of their own interests at stake, apart from their little joysticks driven by their little brains.

That's a fair assessment. Few of the "regulars" still want to keep the article. Also note that the vast majority of those in favour of keeping the article deleted were long-term users or admins.

I predict that the upcoming AfD will be about 50/50, and the person closing it won't have the guts to delete on that basis. That's because there's a myth about "consensus" in Wikipedia, and "consensus" seems to be around 70 or 80 percent.

I plan to close it. I seem to do fairly well at closing otherwise controversial debates and making the result stick. I deleted Gregory Lauder-Frost's article, for example, when the debate was split 50/50 on the numbers, and when there had been dozens of previous conversations that didn't get anywhere.

Due to the views you're expressing in this post, I think you shouldn't be the one to close it. Frankly, it sounds like you are set on deletion. If you want to do it yourself, you should set a percentage figure in advance for what it would take to delete, and hold to it absolutely. I propose 67%.

[Daniel Brandt]

you should set a percentage figure in advance for what it would take to delete, and hold to it absolutely. I propose 67%.

Okay, but I get 200 votes because I'm the subject of the article and I'm the one who has to live with it.