http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...2nd_nomination)

This article should definitely be kept, and expanded to include lots of information about the people behind it.

It's all quite simple. Guy is real-life friends with Poetlister. Poetlister got mad at me because Brad resigned from Wikipedia just as she was expecting Brad to help her with her appeal. In other words, I was wrong to put Brad on hivemind, because Poetlister wanted to return to Wikipedia, and Brad was her ace in the hole.

Now Guy and Poetlister are using the time-worn tactic of openly declaring themselves anti-Brandt, in order to juice up Poetlister's Wikipedia career. Blissy tried the same thing back in the early days. Overnight he went from anti-Slim-pro-Brandt to pro-Slim-anti-Brandt, after I characterized his effusive, glowing defenses of me as "premature ejaculation." Months later Blissy admitted that he was dissing me just to make himself look good to the cabal.

Guy should try evaluating Wikipedia articles on the basis of content and sourcing, and not on the basis of protecting the careerist aspirations of one's cabal-licking friends.

I, for one, have remained steadfastly anti-Brandt, despite many other changes of opinion over the last couple of years. But I agree that the keeping or deletion of all Brandt-related articles must be done based on objective criteria, not on people's personal emotions about the articles or the people/organizations they're about, or based on desires to hurt one's enemies or please one's friends.

This kind of objectivity (not to be confused with objectivISM) is patently false. Daniel, you are in denial, sorry.

Brandt's stuff was put up there for NON-objective reasons. Principal guilty party: SLIMVIRGIN. Why did she put it up there? Well, we know she knew he was a spook hunter, or Spook-documenter (wow, is that a word?), so the fact that anything is up there about him at all is striking. Slim has a history of dragging her, um, past, shall we say, all over Wikipedia. Some of the more suspicious among us might surmise she's even using Wikipedia as a platform to flay people publicly.

Brandt's strong reaction to being put up there (by her no less) indicated he felt it was an aggressive act. He apparently attempted to negotiate for a period, then got fed up and went, well, sideways is a nice way of putting it.

So back to the point: When material is put on Wikipedia with ulterior motives, and one of the motives appears to be "to bother the person in question", then attempts to use clear objective criteria for removal are completely misplaced.

As a bipartisan party, I acknowledge that wasn't kind of G. Having said that, to be fair, they are angry at you for one thing in particular, and you know what it is, D. It's not like this floated out of thin air. Also, comparations with Blissy are a bit misplaced.

I do not see these exercises in "encyclopedic coverage" as chances to lecture on what ought to occur on Wikipedia so much as opportunities to expose how they actually operate.

This site does seem to have been mentioned more in the press than the PIR one.

It's cogent and relevant. Of all sites, it is the more likely to be kept. PIR is a niche product.

Well, "Daniel" is an anagram of "denial"...

I regard the past history of who originally put up the article and what their motives were to be basically irrelevant... you can't change history, but you have to decide what ought to be done with the article now, and that should be based on objective (not necessarily Randroid!) criteria.