Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (second nom)

From 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article, but strong voices that this does not need a separate article. I am calling this a merge with Daniel Brandt. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Watch (2nd nom)

This is a non-notable personal website, started six months ago by one individual. Alexa shows that after a blip in December, traffic has fallen to a trickle [1]. The site fails WP:WEB, and the author himself is of only marginal notability (the site is already covered in his article).

A previous Afd attempt ended without consensus. However, if this website was about anything other than Wikipedia, its article would certainly be deleted. Since we avoid self references, the fact that it is about us should not influence the decision. Wiki-community noteriety =! general notability. Yes, Brandt is infamous within Wikipedia, and yes, this website 'names' a number of wikipedians (including myself), but that does not make his every action worth an individual article. The detailed blow-by-blow content of this article, describing the history of the website would simply not be tolerated in any other web-related article. The article exists only because of a perceived battle between Brandt and Wikipedia, but actually it only serves to feed and exacerbate that same silly foolishness. It feeds trolls, and it is, in itself, basically trolling. --Doc ask? 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional reason - read it - it's just Brandt's blog) note to closing admin - I'll go for merge as a second choice--Doc ask? 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. While Brandt has done a number of things of some minor notability (NameBase, Google Watch, his small role in the Siegenthaler controversy), his rant site is not one of them. WW can be mentioned in a paragraph in his bio but I don't think it merits such comprehensive coverage in its own article. Gamaliel 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination and Gamaliel. Disclosure: I'm listed on the site, and this affects my vote not a whit. Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Covered in more-than-sufficient detail in Brandt's article. --- GWO
  • keep - No reason to delete. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Em, actually that's wrong, about half a dozen reasons have been given. So why do you disagree with them? --Doc ask? 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Google returns the Wikipedia article as the first hit. The actual site isn't even in the top twenty. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Google returns a USC webpage as top. Clusty puts it top, as does Yahoo. The idea that it is non-notable can be dismissed by the sheer volume of unique google hits it generates. There is "No reason to delete". --Irishpunktom\talk 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • You're searching the website's name; it's hardly surprising that you get the website in question in the top results. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gamaliel above Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Daniel Brandt, obviously, because the article about him will most likely always mention this website to some extent, hence the redirect would be useful for anyone seeking whatever information we have concerning said web site. How much of this information is actually useful enough to be included is an editorial matter, and should be discussed at Talk:Daniel Brandt, not here. — Apr. 12, '06 [15:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete. Coverage in Brandt article is more than enough; redirect might be useful. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Daniel Brandt per freakofnurture --rogerd 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gamaliel. Slowmover 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Daniel Brandt. Wikipedia Watch is not notable but he is. Optichan 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per freakofnature. Grandmasterka 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Was mentioned in Le Monde six weeks ago. If they talk about it in France, should be notable. Hektor 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Link? One mention in one newspaper does not make it independently notable. Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge would be my first choice, Delete would be my second choice. Alexa rank 247,657. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons and add a paragraph (no more) on its existence in the Brandt article. -- Saberwyn 21:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would be satisfied with a merge as a secondary option. -- Saberwyn 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Daniel Brandt. Ziggurat 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per everyone. Haikupoet 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm voting delete in order to keep this going so that I can learn more about what is and is not deemed "notable" and "worthy of inclusion", within Wiki. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Merge (and redirect) to Brandt article as suggested above, and needs some trimming. Just because someone makes a really loud, inconsequential comment (or website) once, doesn't mean we should always cover it in a separate article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. FloNight talk 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As in the case of Wikipedia Review, deletion makes it look like Wikipedia is trying to suppress criticism. In a case like this, better to err on the side of including a non-notable site, than to convey an impression of censorship. --HK 06:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Since Brandt doesn't want publicity from wikipedia, that argument is a little weak. --Doc ask? 09:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Brandt wants publicity was not a concern of mine. --HK 06:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't pass the notability test. Merge verifiable content to Brandt article and redirect there. -Will Beback 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is so notable. SkeenaR 03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, nearly all of this information duplicates stuff already on Brandt's page. Tijuana Brass 04:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We currently have four articles on Brandt's websites or self. This one is definitely not needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Duplicate of Brandt's page. Andre (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please it is very notable Yuckfoo 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. No reason to have a separate article. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Create a brand spanking new article entitled "A List of Websites which Daniel Brandt is Affiliated With", and then merge the contents of both this article and of Google Watch, plus that of information on Yahoo! Watch, NameBase and Wikipedia Review, 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 5 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.. Besides, let's remember that Wikipedia Watch is actually a very notable website because it appears that every single time Brandt's name is mentioned here, friends or foes of Brandt will mention Wikipedia Watch. Whether you agree or disagree with Brandt's politics, what cannot be denied is that people who are either pro-Wikipedia or anti-Wikipedia cannot stay away from it. Plus, Wikipedia Watch is notable because it is directly linkable from Google Watch until the title: "Google Loves Wikipedia". Jonathan 666 13:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

::User's first edit. Almost certainly a sock of some banned user. But perhaps the suggestion does merit some discussion. --Doc ask? 14:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect per freakofnurture. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per freakofnurture and Slim. JoshuaZ 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Brandt is "notable", this is "notable". Please don't make nominations for personal reasons. Grace Note 23:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't. Please assume good faith. --Doc ask? 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per freakofnurture. But please keep all info of the article in the merge. Otherwise, keep. --Cyclopia 12:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Gamaliel Aeon 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Google watch is notable, wikipedia watch isn't really. (I'd go for merge as a second choice.) Kotepho 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this AND Google Watch. Merge ALL Brandt-related articles into his own. wikipediatrix 20:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Brandt's own wishes and the notability of this site are mutually exclusive. Silensor 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect this rant to Brandt (feeling poetic at the moment). Nothing notable here not covered in the Daniel Brandt article. Jokestress 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Jonathan 666 may be a sock puppet, or whatever the term is, but what he says actually makes a bit of sense. Merging is easier, though. Kimera757 05:06, 18 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.