[WikiEN-l] [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again

[Anthony]

On 6/14/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> Slim Virgin could put it better, but here I think she's spot on.  The
> main motivation for retaining the article for all this time seems to
> me to have been spite.
>
I don't think its so much spite as a reluctance to admit that, when it
comes to the matter of whether or not this article should be kept,
Brandt was right.  There's also a feeling among some that giving in on
this matter would send a message that legal threats (and other
behaviors) are a valid way to get what you want.

I also think there are a lot of people who think this article should
be kept for reasons which have nothing at all to do with the fact that
Brandt is the subject.  Wikipedia has an article on Angela, despite
the fact that she has requested its removal, despite the fact that the
article has at times contained libel and privacy violations, and
despite the fact that Angela is not a particularly famous person
(personally I'd say Brandt is slightly *more* famous, judging from the
Google Trends results, though Angela gets 3 Google News results
compared to Brandt's 2).

So no, spite it seems is not a determining factor in whether or not
this article was kept.  In fact, using Angela as an example perhaps an
overreaction to this fear was actually the reason it was deleted.

Anthony