Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Watch

Since Wikipedia Watch was not considered important enough to have its own article, I think that the same applies of this article, and also Public Information Research. Thus, I believe that the contents of this article should be merged into the Daniel Brandt article. Also, I see a way in which this entire mess with Brandt can be sorted out (Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia Watch Deletion Voting):

Create a brand spanking new article entitled "A List of Websites which Daniel Brandt is Affiliated With", and then merge the contents of both Wikipedia Watch and of Google Watch, plus that of information on Yahoo! Watch, NameBase, Wikipedia Review and Public Information Research, into the new article. Then, delete all personal information about Brandt (Age/Gender/Location is one thing, but I seriously doubt people were going in 1947: "Good Lord! A Child has been born to missionary parents in China! Let us visit him!" Equally, I seriously doubt there is anything else within his "Background" section that he is notable for. As far as I see it, he is notable only for his contributions to those 6 websites) and then merge what non-personal information there exists left from the Brandt article (including the Seigenthaler stuff) into the new article. This way, several birds are killed with one stone: We cannot complain that Brandt is over represented in his articles in Wikipedia because he will only really feature in one as this proposal details; it will end the controversy in the Criticism of Wikipedia article over the inclusion or not of Wikipedia Review because now we will have information about it; Brandt will most likely cease to complain because what he feels to be "private matters" will no longer be on Wikipedia for everyone to see; and it can stop this bitter war that exists between Brandt and Wikipedia: Brandt can be left to his own devices and Wikipedia can finally have a Brandt article free of controversy and one which they can be truly proud of.

Obviously this process can only be achieved through AfDs, so I beg your co-operation in this matter. Jonathan 666 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Google Watch is extensive and notable, and it has been profiled in major publications. It led to Scroogle and other work by the same activist(s). This is a rambling bad-faith nomination. Jokestress 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. Nowhere do I deny the notability of Google Watch, but what I am saying is that Brandt should have less space on Wikipedia, and that this whole conflict between Wikipedia and Brandt should be put to rest. Because what is it now? Six, seven months? It's getting tiresome. We need a singular article on Brandt which covers his work with the 7 websites (as you've just reminded me of Scroogle), and is devoid of his personal information (such as the China and missionary parents issue) and is thus able to solve many problems as a result. Jonathan 666 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It is standard to include someone's birthplace, birthdate, information about parents, etc. Brandt himself supplied this information to Chasnoff for publication in the San Antonio newspaper. And if Google Watch is notable, shouldn't it have its own entry? Wikipedia Watch is a three-page rant site comprised mostly of an enemies list-- not too notable. Google Watch and Scroogle have been written up on lots of major publications. Jokestress 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but who honestly goes to the Brandt article wanting to know that he was born in X and raised by Y, when in reality it is likely that the majority of people who go onto Wikipedia to look at his article are probably just interested in what he did with the 7 websites mentioned above.

Wikipedia Watch not notable? Searching for it on Google generates 27,300,000 hits, and that was not considered important enough for its own article. Please see however the point about the amount of birds killed with a single stone if this proposal was to go through. We honestly do not need to give Brandt all this space on Wikipedia, due simply to the fact that people more notable than him get less space on Wikipedia, and really in the great scheme of things Brandt is really not that important to have so many articles on Wikipedia. Jonathan_666 217.33.207.195 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. These subjects are notable for inclusion in the Daniel Brandt article, but all these spin-off Brandtcruft articles are utterly frivolous. What's next, a Daniel Brandt Series Template? His own Category? wikipediatrix 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 68.89.137.197 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly notable. I read the Daniel Brandt article and wanted to know more about Google watch so I clicked on the link and was directed to the Google Watch article which was exactly what I wanted. - DNewhall
  • So why can't Google Watch just be merged into the Brandt article? You would still have the information you needed. Jonathan_666 217.33.207.195 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daniel Brandt or delete. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is a nonsensical deletion campaign. heqs 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really aim for it to be deleted, rather simply merged with the Brandt article. Does Brandt really need all this space on Wikipedia? Jonathan_666 217.33.207.195 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should've proposed merger(s) through the normal means. heqs 11:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with heqs. Google Watch is notable and should not be deleted. Gold Stur 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. 207.193.28.35 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's boring. 4.230.162.238 15:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Strangeland 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User has 10 edits; all on Daniel-Brandt-related articles. [1] Vslashg (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Google Watch is hardly so trivial as to warrant deletion. Kitty 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daniel Brandt if you insist on having an article on him. Take the personal stuff out. Are we really only doing that if someone threatens legal action? Let's show that there actually is a principle here and not just "bully the weak, bow to the powerful". Grace Note 05:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. JennyLoo 00:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User account created today; all non-userspace edits on Daniel-Brandt-related articles. [2] Vslashg (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. The Google-Watch site is stale; it hasn't been updated in a couple of years. GeeGoo 00:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User account created today; all non-userspace edits on Daniel-Brandt-related articles. [3] Vslashg (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge in to Google. It was notable early on in Google's development, but nowadays people don't even care much, and Google has become very big in spite of it. 203.122.195.111 17:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (vote wiped to prevent consensus)
• Delete The site looks like a throwback to the early web, with all those 16-color cartoons. Wikipedia has higher standards than this. Figworth 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User account created today; all edits on Daniel-Brandt-related articles. [4] Vslashg (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This nomination feels like retaliation for Wikipedia Watch being deleted. Website has an Alexa rank of 30,395, quite notably high for a smallish website with no new content. The Brandt story is clearly notable [5] and this is the website he's famous for. Note that the majority of the delete and merge votes here are from anonymous users and freshly-created users. Vslashg (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • By whom? Kotepho 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment At the time of my original vote, I added comments above on the seeming sockpuppet votes. In fairness, once I unorphaned this AfD, many legitimate users have come out in favor of delete/merge. I stand by my vote and leave my explanation intact, as I want to make sure the closing admin realizes the status of some of the earlier votes. Vslashg (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. --Domthedude001 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google Watch is notable, Brandt is not. Kotepho 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge but only after you've created the new site. And make it searchable. Nothing vague like "Brandt's personal sites." lizabeth83 5:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daniel Brandt.--Isotope23 16:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or second choice merge Bhoeble 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am interested in finding out about Google Watch and Scroogle and some of these web phenomena without knowing anything at all about Brandt. I suspect that there are other Wikipedia users who would resonate with this. The real question at the core of all this is "when does a creation take on an emergent life of its own, and thus become more than just a sub-category of the creator?". The internet is an environment which tends to foster this phase transition. Latch 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, two million hits [6], more than notable. --Striver 11:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, cited website. jucifer 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This AfD process is meant to last for 7 days, at least according to my knowledge of the AfD process. This AfD began on the 18th April. Can someone please tell me how one closes an AfD debate? And are votes after the deadline for the end of voting valid? Jonathan_666 86.129.33.179 19:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The AFD lag time is actually 5 days, but they were not listed on AFD until the 23rd. There is no strict cutoff date though, people can 'vote' until it is closed. Kotepho 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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.