Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There have been good arguments that the subject does not pass does not qualify for deletion under
WP:GNG, and because bullet point two from BLP1E doesn't apply. However, I'm closing this with no prejudice against the article being renamed/refactored into an article about the events that led up to the outing, as I do not see a strong consensus for or against that action in this discussion. That will need to be discussed further on the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Michael Brutsch
AfDs for this article:
This is an easy
WP:BLP1E
; reliable sources cover this person only in the context of a single event. This person otherwise remains a low-profile individual, and has not received considerable media coverage recently. Searching for "Michael Brutsch" on Google News, I see one relevant result. It is from a month ago, and that refers back to his outing as the "biggest troll on the web." As far as I know he has not done anything notable since then.
The previous AFD ended in "no consensus" and an admin recommended "reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed." Time has passed and this person does not have significant lasting notability beyond the media attention he receieved in October.
To pull from a quote the previous AFD nomination, "BLP1E revolves around 1) 'is the subject for only known for one thing?", 2) "absent this one thing would this person be unknown?", and 3) "going forward, is the subject likely to remain low-profile?'"
I'd say yes to all three.
Another still-relevant segment from the original AFD: "Yes, people caught up in one-event cases will give interviews in the immediate aftermath, but that's really not enough to address this criteria. You would need to see a sustained campaign of spotlight-chasing that keeps the person in the headlines. An example of that would be Sandra Fluke, who has now passed the threshold of notability beyond the initial one-event Rush Limbaugh dust-up. This guy isn't that, and since his livelihood has essentially been destroyed by publicity, I'd say he is unlikely to chase it anytime soon, if ever. This case is more like the girl who was spanked by her father; a news frenzy, then gone."
The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. The main [reddit] article already has a paragraph on the events described in this article under "Controversial Subreddits", so it doesn't make sense to give the person their own article as well. Hardly anything on Wikipedia links to the "Michael Brutsch" page, to boot.
--Breadblade (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum In response to comments made in the long discussion below, I am adding the following piece of information to my original statement:
- A search of 4,600 news sources via newslibrary.com turns up nothing for "violentacrez" between 1900 and September 2012 beyond a CNN piece where he was given a trivial mention (his name was mentioned in passing, but he was not discussed).
- In October 2012 (the time period of the "outing" incident) there are many articles which refer to "violentacrez."
Here is a link to screenshots of the search results. You may follow the link and repeat this search to see the results in your browser.
He has kept a low profile since then and is not likely to become involved in a second notable event. Hence, he received significant coverage from reputable sources centering around one event (his "unmasking"), did not receive significant coverage before then and is not likely to receive significant coverage in the future.
He is notable for one event, and his page should be merged with a page about his "unmasking," merged with the appropriate subsection on reddit or deleted.
Breadblade (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously, this is not a BLP1E case as the individual has been covered independently in the context of three separate events from 2011 to 2012 as the sources in the article and my argument in the previous AfD showed. The outing is just the event that got the most attention. In addition, he has been discussed months after the event occurred, often in contexts that pay more attention to his general activities on Reddit than his actual outing. Here is some of the in-depth coverage that occurred months after the fact.
- An article from last month that appeared in the Daily Dot and Salon focusing mostly on Brutsch in how he represents an aspect of Reddit culture.
- Winnipeg Free Press includes a paragraph about the outing in a March article.
- MIT Technology Review article from February discussing him in context of his Reddit activities and subsequent outing.
- In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine for the January issue Jaron Lanier discusses his behavior as a sign of problems with anonymity on the Internet.
- It is certainly true that the outing is often mentioned, but he is typically not discussed solely in the context of the outing. Not even his outing was discussed solely in that context. Rather, he is most known for his outing so that is mentioned first and the source then devotes in-depth discussion to him in a different context. He certainly pursued a high profile on Reddit for some time before his outing (he even created a sub-reddit about himself) and the in-depth interview he did with CNN was hardly some on-the-spot action by the press.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All four of those articles are referring to this person in to context of the same "Outing" event from October and/or the unsavory elements of the site, which are already covered under the main reddit article. Two of the four articles you link to don't even refer to his real name. Brutsch hasn't done anything public in months as far as I know, and as such he remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Breadblade (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, when you say "and/or" with what follows being something other than the event and yet still very noteworthy, then you have already proven that BLP1E does not apply. The outing is often going to be mentioned whenever he is mentioned because it is a significant part of his notability, but it does not mean those mentions are all in the context of the event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Michael Brutsch receive significant media attention before October 2012? No. If the media has to add in that he was the subject of Chen's article for the audience to have any idea of who he is, he's probably only notable in the context of that event. Type "violentacrez" and "micheal brutsch" into google trends. You'll see the graph hover near zero before October 2012, peak sharply in October 2012, and fall off sharply again in 2013. In fact, let's look at the Wikipedia article's description of notable things he's done before October 2012:
- Generic background information
- Brutsch finds reddit.com.
- Brutsch makes (awful) subforums on reddit.com.
- Brutsch submits popular, but controversial image to reddit, gives interview to a magazine that covers reddit closely, the Daily Dot.
- (Note that almost every citation used in the article dated before October 2012 is from the Daily Dot.)
- One forum Brutsch creates gets mentioned on CNN segment about the forum. The segment is about the forum, but not Brutsch. (Brutsch's username is read once from a list of moderators, but beyond that no reference is made to him or his role on the site.) The forum is closed.
- The Daily Dot, the only source that seems to be covering Brutsch at this point, gives Brutsch an award.
- Brutsch is quoted in a blip about reddit blocking domains.
- Let's look at the Wikipedia article's description of notable things he's done after October 2012:
- Nothing
- Let's face it. He was the flavor of the month in October 2012, but now he's fading sharply back into obscurity.
- Breadblade (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether he does anything in the future is not really pertinent. He has played a pivotal role in multiple events and been covered by multiple reliable sources in each case, including one major event that is leading to him being covered in multiple different contexts months later, not just the outing. I would note that not all recent coverage of him mentions the outing, but yours is not really a valid point. He is notable for the outing, but also for other reasons. A source noting one thing he is notable for and then talking about him in-depth with regards to something else entirely indicates that he is a subject of noteworthy interest for reliable sources due to reasons other than his association with one event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy after a brief spike of media attention detailing the guy's past internet activities to assume that everyone always knew who he is, but if his role in previous events was pivotal and the news coverage of him was so extensive, I'm not seeing that reflected in Google Trends. "Reddit Jailbait" was a big deal. "Brutsch?" "Violentacrez?" Hardly anybody outside the reddit bubble was talking about him before his outing. Discussion of Brutsch should remain in the main reddit article, as that is the one arena in which he was truly notable.
- Breadblade (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether he does anything in the future is not really pertinent. He has played a pivotal role in multiple events and been covered by multiple reliable sources in each case, including one major event that is leading to him being covered in multiple different contexts months later, not just the outing. I would note that not all recent coverage of him mentions the outing, but yours is not really a valid point. He is notable for the outing, but also for other reasons. A source noting one thing he is notable for and then talking about him in-depth with regards to something else entirely indicates that he is a subject of noteworthy interest for reliable sources due to reasons other than his association with one event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Michael Brutsch receive significant media attention before October 2012? No. If the media has to add in that he was the subject of Chen's article for the audience to have any idea of who he is, he's probably only notable in the context of that event. Type "violentacrez" and "micheal brutsch" into google trends. You'll see the graph hover near zero before October 2012, peak sharply in October 2012, and fall off sharply again in 2013. In fact, let's look at the Wikipedia article's description of notable things he's done before October 2012:
- You see, when you say "and/or" with what follows being something other than the event and yet still very noteworthy, then you have already proven that BLP1E does not apply. The outing is often going to be mentioned whenever he is mentioned because it is a significant part of his notability, but it does not mean those mentions are all in the context of the event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All four of those articles are referring to this person in to context of the same "Outing" event from October and/or the unsavory elements of the site, which are already covered under the main reddit article. Two of the four articles you link to don't even refer to his real name. Brutsch hasn't done anything public in months as far as I know, and as such he remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Breadblade (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of BLP1E is to protect innocent bystanders and low-profile individuals from being embarrassed. Brutsch does not, strictly speaking, fit Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual because he was interviewed on CNN and it wasn't an ambush interview—the guy voluntarily sought the publicity. And Brutsch is pretty far from an innocent bystander. The sources show that he's the guy who ran subreddits for sexualised images of children, images of dead children, rape jokes, and so on.]
Of course, the children involved weren't naked or actually dead, so he was guilty of low standards, poor judgment and a sick sense of humour rather than doing anything illegal. He's not an innocent bystander, he did this deliberately and he was in it up to his eyeballs for years. However, there's another factor in favour of deletion, which is that the coverage is all in a short burst around October 2012.
Still, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, and BLP1E is not for protecting the blatantly guilty. And the article is tied up with some very topical and up-to-date themes about the boundaries of freedom of speech, privacy, internet anonymity, and the use of people's images without their consent. These are subjects the public would expect an online encyclopaedia to cover.
On balance I'm of the view that this material is well within scope and the guy deserves his Wikipedia article. I'm not minded to protect him. Keep.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
- It doesn't take much to run a subreddit. The content you're referring to was crowdsourced by thousands of reddit users, hence discussion of sexualised images of children, images of dead children, rape jokes and so on probably belongs on the reddit article. In fact, it's already there, along with discussion of Brutsch. Maybe it should be expanded. I would also support a redirect or merge of the Brutsch article into a page about these freedom-of-speech, anonymity and privacy issues you're referring to. I don't care about protecting Brutsch, but if the purpose of this page really were to target the guy (it's not, as far as I know), it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. Fact is, Brutsch hasn't done anything newsworthy in about five months, and he wasn't really well known before then either.
- Breadblade (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't widely known, and not by his real name, but he was certainly known outside Reddit before the outing. I mean, I don't have a Reddit account and have barely ever looked at the site, but I knew about him before the outing because of his association with the jailbait subreddit that was subject to some significant news coverage back in 2011. The outing just made him a widely-known figure. We have at least half a dozen reliable sources talking about violentacrez prior to the outing, with The Daily Dot devoting some significant attention to him. Despite what you and Marshall have said, there have been recurring mentions, some significant, in the months since the outing. All of the sources I provided above were from months after the event. Already this is popping up in scholarly works.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see this significant coverage of Violentacrez in 2011, outside of the Daily Dot (which devotes significant attention to the reddit community's internal workings). Even I've been featured on the Daily Dot. The scholarly article you are referring to talks about Brutsch solely in the context of Gawker's October 2012 article exposing Brutsch's moderation activity, so I'm not sure why that doesn't prove my point further.
- Breadblade (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was mentioned on CNN and Gawker at the time, but, more importantly, he created the subreddit that was getting extensive coverage so it was not some trivial role he played in that event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen the Gawker article, but I think this is the CNN segment I think that you are referring to, and it might be considered a trivial mention. Anderson reads his username, notes that he doesn't how to pronounce it, and makes no further reference to Brutsch. Breadblade (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was mentioned on CNN and Gawker at the time, but, more importantly, he created the subreddit that was getting extensive coverage so it was not some trivial role he played in that event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't widely known, and not by his real name, but he was certainly known outside Reddit before the outing. I mean, I don't have a Reddit account and have barely ever looked at the site, but I knew about him before the outing because of his association with the jailbait subreddit that was subject to some significant news coverage back in 2011. The outing just made him a widely-known figure. We have at least half a dozen reliable sources talking about violentacrez prior to the outing, with The Daily Dot devoting some significant attention to him. Despite what you and Marshall have said, there have been recurring mentions, some significant, in the months since the outing. All of the sources I provided above were from months after the event. Already this is popping up in scholarly works.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. This should be so obvious, as the article is about an incident, not a person. The incident is notable, and that's what this article is about. Find a way to harmonize that with the BLP1E policy. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a restructuring and renaming of this article to be about the Gawker exposé and related events instead of a biography of this person. Seems much more appropriate. Breadblade (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd still need the redirects from Michael Brutsch because those are the plausible search terms. But if this exercise would achieve consensus and save face all round, then I certainly wouldn't object.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, those would be good redirects to put in. Breadblade (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd still need the redirects from
- I don't agree with any rename or refocusing as sources do not just discuss him as someone who was outed and the result will be focusing more on the negative aspects of the individual as that's the only information relevant to the outing. We can have an article on both as each is independently notable, but an article on the event will inevitably mean an article that talks of him only as the "jailbait guy" who got outed, which is not all that this article discusses nor all that it should discuss as it is not all that reliable sources discuss.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article already focuses pretty strongly on his involvement in places like /r/beatingwomen and /r/jailbait, I'm not sure why a hypothetical restructuring would make him look any worse than he already does. Also I'm not sure what else he's known for beyond being "the jailbait guy who got outed." Beyond the talk of his reddit activities, all the page has is some "career" information sourced from a personal resume hosted on Brutsch's own webpage. Breadblade (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One way it would make him look worse is by removing things that make him look better. His objections to the blacklisting of certain news sites back in July is one thing that would definitely not be included and it is the only noteworthy incident he was involved in where he wasn't the subject of the negative coverage. The extent to which defenses of his Reddit activity could be included would be limited as it is only tangentially relevant to the outing itself. It also would prevent other details about him from being added as they would be of little or no relevance to the outing. An article about the outing would not be about his Reddit activities or him so details that could make him or his Reddit activities look better or just less bad to readers would not be included.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should avoid making this change because there aren't enough reliable secondary sources that make this person look good? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Breadblade (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying there are enough sources so there should be a bio because any article on the event would really only allow a negatively-slanted portrayal of him, while a bio would allow for a more balanced portrayal. I don't see a problem with having an article on the event and an article on him, as I said. He is notable for more than just being outed and to have Wikipedia content focus solely on the outing would deprive readers of greater understanding regarding the individual central to the event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if the sources are sufficient for a full biography. Most of his "career" segment is sourced from a self-published résumé, except for the information about the job he was fired from in October 2012 due to the Gawker article. I'm not convinced of how pivotal of a role Brutsch played in the blocking of news sites, either. After a quick scan of news articles on that incident I could find no mention of violentacrez, even though the one cited in the Wikipedia page used a brief quote from him. Beyond that, the "violentacrez" segment is almost entirely about his activity on controversial subreddits, and would probably be relevant for page restructured in this way. (Though it would be probably a bit long). Breadblade (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The role he played was in bringing it to attention. Many sources don't reference violentacrez directly, but do reference the r/banneddomains subreddit he created to draw attention to the issue. Sources that were cited in the article are just the ones directly crediting him with bringing the story to light. Just like sources extensively discussing the jailbait subreddit aren't included unless they explicitly mention violentacrez, even though he was the creator and moderator of the subreddit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't referenced in those articles because few knew or cared who this person was outside of reddit before the events of October 2012. If he really was a well-known or notable figure before then, I doubt that news outlets would forget to put his username on the article, or comment on who is giving this announcement. If reliable sources aren't covering the person except for in the context of a single event, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Breadblade (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The role he played was in bringing it to attention. Many sources don't reference violentacrez directly, but do reference the r/banneddomains subreddit he created to draw attention to the issue. Sources that were cited in the article are just the ones directly crediting him with bringing the story to light. Just like sources extensively discussing the jailbait subreddit aren't included unless they explicitly mention violentacrez, even though he was the creator and moderator of the subreddit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if the sources are sufficient for a full biography. Most of his "career" segment is sourced from a self-published résumé, except for the information about the job he was fired from in October 2012 due to the Gawker article. I'm not convinced of how pivotal of a role Brutsch played in the blocking of news sites, either. After a quick scan of news articles on that incident I could find no mention of violentacrez, even though the one cited in the Wikipedia page used a brief quote from him. Beyond that, the "violentacrez" segment is almost entirely about his activity on controversial subreddits, and would probably be relevant for page restructured in this way. (Though it would be probably a bit long). Breadblade (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying there are enough sources so there should be a bio because any article on the event would really only allow a negatively-slanted portrayal of him, while a bio would allow for a more balanced portrayal. I don't see a problem with having an article on the event and an article on him, as I said. He is notable for more than just being outed and to have Wikipedia content focus solely on the outing would deprive readers of greater understanding regarding the individual central to the event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should avoid making this change because there aren't enough reliable secondary sources that make this person look good? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Breadblade (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One way it would make him look worse is by removing things that make him look better. His objections to the blacklisting of certain news sites back in July is one thing that would definitely not be included and it is the only noteworthy incident he was involved in where he wasn't the subject of the negative coverage. The extent to which defenses of his Reddit activity could be included would be limited as it is only tangentially relevant to the outing itself. It also would prevent other details about him from being added as they would be of little or no relevance to the outing. An article about the outing would not be about his Reddit activities or him so details that could make him or his Reddit activities look better or just less bad to readers would not be included.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article already focuses pretty strongly on his involvement in places like /r/beatingwomen and /r/jailbait, I'm not sure why a hypothetical restructuring would make him look any worse than he already does. Also I'm not sure what else he's known for beyond being "the jailbait guy who got outed." Beyond the talk of his reddit activities, all the page has is some "career" information sourced from a personal resume hosted on Brutsch's own webpage. Breadblade (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a restructuring and renaming of this article to be about the Gawker exposé and related events instead of a biography of this person. Seems much more appropriate. Breadblade (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying he was a well-known figure or that it would have been appropriate to have an article about him prior to the outing. Sourcing was sparse and he wasn't the direct subject of coverage, just a noteworthy player in the events. However, you are insisting that this is a BLP1E case and that he is only known for being outed. Your argument simply isn't correct. You have three events where reliable sources note he played a major role, two of these events were major and one sort of an average news event, the last being one where he was the primary subject of coverage. There is no BLP2E, never mind a BLP3E, criteria for deleting or merging an article. In addition you have plenty of in-depth coverage of him as an independent subject of interest following the outing. Mind you, it is an incomplete bio. There are plenty of pertinent details about him that could be but have not been included here and that would not really be relevant to an article on the outing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was involved in three events, but is he notable for all three? I've discussed this above: probably not. The articles about the site-wide domain bans overwhelmingly did not talk about him. He got a trivial mention in a CNN segment (I provided a transcript and summary above), but violentacrez otherwise didn't enter into the discussion. Part of the whole point of the Gawker article is that nobody in the general public paid much attention to violentacrez or his actions on reddit until Adrian Chen put a spotlight on him. After that, it's easy to look back on these events and retroactively say he was prominent and notable, but in reality? He wasn't a big deal unil October 2012. Breadblade (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, he is notable for all three. His involvement in all three events was "worthy of notice", which is what notability means, as several reliable sources did consider his involvement worthy of noting, some in detail. The issue is whether he is so worthy of notice that there should be an article focused on him. With those events prior to the outing he may not have been that worthy of notice. No one can argue that to be the case any more. Reliable sources not only consider him "worthy of notice" because he was outed, but because of his general activity on Reddit and what it indicates about Internet culture. Sources mentioning the outing and then discussing him for entirely different reasons is indicative of reliable sources considering him worthy of notice for more than just his association with a single event. There are sources that don't actually mention the outing at all, so obviously it is not a matter of people simply being interested because he was some pseudonymous person online that got identified. Given that reliable sources considered him worthy of notice prior to the outing, the continued interest in him as a general subject of interest, not simply as a player in one event, indicates that there should be an article about him and not just the event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The source you brought up that is supposed to not mention Brutsch's outing at all... quotes him in a hyperlink to his post-outing interview with CNN. The other two articles bring him up in the context of the Gawker article. Breadblade (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Quoting from his CNN interview is not the same as mentioning his outing or covering him in the context of his outing. For fuck's sake, if someone mentions the comments in the Salon source that quotes from his CNN interview are you going to say that source also only covers him in the context of his outing? The word "context" means something very different from what you are using it to say. The Salon source covers him in the context of some issue completely unrelated to his outing. All that said and he is still covered by reliable sources in the context of two other events and his role in those previous events was major. He is known generally for his activities on Reddit, known for being outed, known for the jailbait subreddit specifically, and known for breaking the banned domains story. No BLP1E objection is acceptable here, period.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that his CNN interview was about the outing, I'm not sure how it would be thought of as an independent event. He was not well-known or given non-trivial coverage for his reddit activities before the brief burst of media attention he received in October 2012. Breadblade (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, his CNN interview was not "about the outing", but really about him and his Reddit activities. It was prompted by the outing, but the idea that referencing the CNN interview months later is the same as referencing the outing is stretching it. He also was given non-trivial coverage for his Reddit activities prior to the outing. Reliable sources crediting him for breaking a major story or a source in 2011 naming him the most influential person on Reddit is significant, not trivial.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNN interview had everything to do with the outing (which, as the only event Brutsch is objectively notable for, was itself about him and his reddit activities), it followed the initial wave of media attention that followed the Gawker article. Where is this non-trivial coverage prior to October 2012? Also, I'm not sure if a reddit-centric publication calling someone influential on reddit is a solid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. How many other users on that list have (or should have) wikipedia pages? Are they (or should they be) mentioned on the main reddit article? Breadblade (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Dot is not a "reddit-centric" publication and I imagine most, if not all, of those other redditors on the list did not also get covered by other reliable sources for playing major roles in multiple events. It is the accumulation of significant mentions in sourcing that matters.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Dot releases several articles on minor happenings on reddit each week, and it is relied upon heavily in this article for sources detailing his actions prior to the events of October 2012. If he's recieved significant non-trivial coverage from publications prior to October 2012 I'm not seeing it. Breadblade (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Dot is not a "reddit-centric" publication and I imagine most, if not all, of those other redditors on the list did not also get covered by other reliable sources for playing major roles in multiple events. It is the accumulation of significant mentions in sourcing that matters.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The CNN interview had everything to do with the outing (which, as the only event Brutsch is objectively notable for, was itself about him and his reddit activities), it followed the initial wave of media attention that followed the Gawker article. Where is this non-trivial coverage prior to October 2012? Also, I'm not sure if a reddit-centric publication calling someone influential on reddit is a solid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. How many other users on that list have (or should have) wikipedia pages? Are they (or should they be) mentioned on the main reddit article? Breadblade (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, his CNN interview was not "about the outing", but really about him and his Reddit activities. It was prompted by the outing, but the idea that referencing the CNN interview months later is the same as referencing the outing is stretching it. He also was given non-trivial coverage for his Reddit activities prior to the outing. Reliable sources crediting him for breaking a major story or a source in 2011 naming him the most influential person on Reddit is significant, not trivial.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that his CNN interview was about the outing, I'm not sure how it would be thought of as an independent event. He was not well-known or given non-trivial coverage for his reddit activities before the brief burst of media attention he received in October 2012. Breadblade (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Quoting from his CNN interview is not the same as mentioning his outing or covering him in the context of his outing. For fuck's sake, if someone mentions the comments in the Salon source that quotes from his CNN interview are you going to say that source also only covers him in the context of his outing? The word "context" means something very different from what you are using it to say. The Salon source covers him in the context of some issue completely unrelated to his outing. All that said and he is still covered by reliable sources in the context of two other events and his role in those previous events was major. He is known generally for his activities on Reddit, known for being outed, known for the jailbait subreddit specifically, and known for breaking the banned domains story. No BLP1E objection is acceptable here, period.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The source you brought up that is supposed to not mention Brutsch's outing at all... quotes him in a hyperlink to his post-outing interview with CNN. The other two articles bring him up in the context of the Gawker article. Breadblade (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, he is notable for all three. His involvement in all three events was "worthy of notice", which is what notability means, as several reliable sources did consider his involvement worthy of noting, some in detail. The issue is whether he is so worthy of notice that there should be an article focused on him. With those events prior to the outing he may not have been that worthy of notice. No one can argue that to be the case any more. Reliable sources not only consider him "worthy of notice" because he was outed, but because of his general activity on Reddit and what it indicates about Internet culture. Sources mentioning the outing and then discussing him for entirely different reasons is indicative of reliable sources considering him worthy of notice for more than just his association with a single event. There are sources that don't actually mention the outing at all, so obviously it is not a matter of people simply being interested because he was some pseudonymous person online that got identified. Given that reliable sources considered him worthy of notice prior to the outing, the continued interest in him as a general subject of interest, not simply as a player in one event, indicates that there should be an article about him and not just the event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Dot covers all manner of stories regarding the Internet. You can't just hand-wave its non-trivial coverage away by suggesting it is focused mainly on Reddit when it is not. It is relied on heavily because it gives the most in-depth coverage. The other coverage I have noted is not trivial either. A trivial mention of someone on Reddit would be "x redditor commented on the controversy" not "x redditor brought this whole controversy to light in a posting on Reddit", which is what one of the incidences of coverage entailed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if "Brutsch made a post on reddit" qualifies as an event notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe for the reddit article on Wikipedia. Breadblade (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Brutsch made a post on Reddit and sparked off a major controversy in the media" is a more apt description. It isn't an event notable enough for its own article sure and I wasn't suggesting such a thing. However, him receiving coverage in the media for breaking that story is significant coverage prior to the outing and in combination with his documented significant involvement in other major events and substantive coverage of him as a general subject of interest it does merit having an article on him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He did not get significant coverage for breaking this story, which was in itself not especially notable. The story got coverage, but hardly any sources discussed him or his role in it. Probably because he wasn't considered worthy of note by sources not closely following the inner workings of reddit until October 2012. The amount of attention he was given for making this post was comparable to the amount of attention any reddit user gets when their post is picked up by the media: hardly any. Perhaps if "persons notable for one event and also mentioned in passing in the discussion of an event that was sort of notable" were criteria for inclusion I would agree that this article should be left as is. Breadblade (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and you plainly acknowledge that he has been covered by reliable sources in the context of multiple events. There is no basis for dismissing this coverage for not being as significant as other coverage or saying a source that does give significant coverage shouldn't be considered because you think it gives too much coverage to Internet happenings. By the same token there is no basis for your attempt to dismiss all persisting coverage of Brutsch himself, not the outing, if it in any way references anything related to the outing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He did not get significant coverage for breaking this story, which was in itself not especially notable. The story got coverage, but hardly any sources discussed him or his role in it. Probably because he wasn't considered worthy of note by sources not closely following the inner workings of reddit until October 2012. The amount of attention he was given for making this post was comparable to the amount of attention any reddit user gets when their post is picked up by the media: hardly any. Perhaps if "persons notable for one event and also mentioned in passing in the discussion of an event that was sort of notable" were criteria for inclusion I would agree that this article should be left as is. Breadblade (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Brutsch made a post on Reddit and sparked off a major controversy in the media" is a more apt description. It isn't an event notable enough for its own article sure and I wasn't suggesting such a thing. However, him receiving coverage in the media for breaking that story is significant coverage prior to the outing and in combination with his documented significant involvement in other major events and substantive coverage of him as a general subject of interest it does merit having an article on him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Every rationale for deletion i already gave at AfD #1 is still relevant today, so read that for the full rationale. This wound up as a stalemate then, with the closing admin "recommend[ing] reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed". We are here now some months down the road, and "The Devil's Advocate"'s fundamental misrepresentation of what it means to be "one event" and what it means for a person to be known only for one event shows no sign of letting up. Mr. Brutch has never done anything outside of being fired from his real-life job because he was outed as a controversial reddit moderator. There is no lasting notability, no greater cultural or historcal impact or significance, no precedent or history-setting moment following this event. This is a vindictive and spiteful BLP creation, of which the Wikipedia has a long and dreary history of. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename He's definitely known for more than one thing - the controversy about him being doxxed by Gawker, the offensive subreddits he created (especially "jailbait", which got media attention even before he was doxxed), etc - and once he did a voluntary in-depth interview with CNN, he ceased to be a private individual by choice. Nowhere near enough time has passed since the last nomination to make the determination that he's maintaining a low profile, especially since there was a new reference to him being "the biggest troll on the web" (another of his ongoing reasons for notability) only a month ago. So try as I may, I cannot think of even one valid reason to delete this article, though I can think of many reasons why it should be kept. However, I also think it would be better titled by his username, Violentacrez, since that's the name by which most people know him even after his true identity was revealed. (Violentacrez currently redirects here.) Perhaps that would be a palatable compromise to reach consensus. HillbillyGoat (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know on the name. More recent sources mostly use his username, but it has been a mixed bag with plenty of sources using his real name more often than his username and I think some have used only his real name. One should also consider that he has tried to dissociate himself from that username. Still, I am not exactly opposed to that sort of rename.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the Gawker article was about the subreddits he created, and the interview followed the media hype over the Gawker article, I don't think that those reasons for notability that you cite constitute seperate events. As far as his continued low profile, subsequent mentions of him haven't referred to anything he's done after October 2012. Just because people are still covering something that happened in October doesn't mean he's actively seeking out media attention in 2013. Breadblade (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if I agree with everything you just stated, that still does not negate the fact that his actions (and the fallout therefrom) are still being discussed by individuals. When someone like me (who was not on Reddit when any of this occurred, and in general doesn't take an interest in such things) still remembers details about his subreddits and the controversy surrounding them, and still recognizes him by name, he is a public figure. This is especially true for someone who specifically sought controversy and attention for years under their username, and voluntarily submitted to an in-depth interview with a major media source under their real name. For all anyone knows, since he has sought attention to that extent in the past, he could be planning to profit from the controversy by writing a book. I therefore believe that six months is nowhere near enough time to establish low profile, if indeed that can ever be established. I do still think it should be renamed, however, since he is better known by his username. HillbillyGoat (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would definitely agree that his outing (and the surrounding discussion) could still be considered notable and might deserve its own page, in which case the bulk of the nominated article could be moved and restructured onto such a page, redirected from "Brutsch" and "violentacrez." (as per above discussions.) I would be likely to reconsider my position if he were indeed to publish a book so far after-the-fact and receive some (necessarily Brutsch-related) publicity for it, but I haven't heard about any book deals yet. Breadblade (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This has more than the temporary significance implied by BLP1E (it fails the third bullet point of BLP1E). Would be amenable to a rename to Violentacrez, with his real name being a redirect. Andreas JN466 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that this fails the third bullet point of BLP1E. I'm pretty sure he has kept a low profile since the events revolving around his outing, as even the most recent news sources that mention him don't refer to anything that he's done after October 2012. Does anyone have any information on anything he's done in 2013? November 2012 even? Breadblade (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another recent mention of him with several paragraphs in the context of the controversial subreddit about suspects in the Boston bombings and it only uses his real name without anything that could even remotely be spun as a reference to the outing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That same article quotes an admin who notes that Brutsch is no longer on reddit, which makes it sound as if Brutsch has been keeping a low profile. Which refutes the claim of the user you're replying to about failing the third bullet point of BLP1E. The only other Brutsch mention just rehashes a portion of the October 2012 Gawker article that unmasked him. All roads lead back to the "outing" here. It's almost as if this person is significant for just one event. Breadblade (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what "rehashing" are you saying leads back to the outing? The idea that any reference to anything that was also covered during coverage of the outing means it is really just coverage in the context of the outing is an absurd twisting of the policy. It seems as if you are just looking for the most tenuous of connections to the outing to prop up your BLP1E objection, even though three events have actually been noted in the article and noted again several times in this discussion. Obviously, the whole context of that article is controversial subreddits, not outing, and no mention is made of outing at all. He is clearly getting a noteworthy mention in that context because his general activity on Reddit is considered noteworthy, not just his connection with a single event.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gawker article brought him a brief spurt of media attention regarding his activity on reddit, which was not in itself notable. If it were, he might have receieved significant coverage for this activity before October 2012, when that article was released. Future references to Brutsch repeat the details about Brutsch discussed in the article. Breadblade (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I read the page in question and both AfDs and I'm seeing this pretty much exactly as Tarc, this is a low-profile individual who achieved a level of notoriety based on one-event. I would not be adverse to a separate conversation to rework the page to describe the event that led to the notoriety. J04n(talk page) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been noted several times, BLP1E doesn't apply when someone has been covered by reliable sources in the context of multiple events and no one has denied that this is the case, instead trying to trivialize the previous coverage and previous events. Jayen has further noted correctly that his role in the outing itself eliminates the third criteria and that doesn't even tell the whole story. Most coverage of the event was really coverage of Brutsch and most coverage since the event has been coverage of him. Reliable sources seem generally more interested in him than the event itself. That is because of his activity on objectionable subreddits and his close relationship with higher-ups on the site. It is absurd to act as if what reliable sources only really care about is that he was outed. Said sources consider him worthy of notice independently of the outing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the previous coverage is being trivialized because there was virtually no significant coverage at all. If he had notability prior to his outing and all these events were "really about him," why didn't any non-trivial mentions of this person get picked up by any of those 4,000 publications before he was made notorious after-the-fact? Something tells me that the importance of these reddit events are being vastly overstated. Breadblade (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after merging relevant material to ]
- Delete after merging any relevant materials (and am not sure that anything needs merging) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.