Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch
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. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Watch
Subject of this article is a nn subpage of Daniel Brandt's website which already has an article; FRS 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Recommend protected redirection of this page to Daniel Brandt to keep all the eggs in one basket. --FRS 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral this might be worth an article separate from Daniel Brandt. But the current article is highly POV and reads more like a blog entry than an encyclopedia article. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite per CarbonCopy. See if enough can be written for a real article, but I suspect not. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary at this point. This website just isn't that important. But recreate as protected redirect to Daniel Brandt, per nominator. u p p l a n d 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Already has adequate mention in that article. --Carnildo 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep obviously and portion from Daniel Brandt should simply point to this. Necessary to keep to conform to WP:NPOV which entries relating to this are having major problems complying to. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- In what way does NPOV necessitate that Wikipedia Watch must get its own separate article? NPOV requires that things be described fairly; you're going to have to draw the connections if you want to substantiate your claim that "Wikipedia Watch described in Wikipedia Watch == good and fair; Wikipedia Watch described in Daniel Brandt == bad and POV". Given the bad-faith "hide the content" games recently played with Wikifiddler, I must agree with FRS; Protected redirect to Daniel Brandt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I guess the problem here is that we've claimed that Daniel Brandt is notable. Now, within the activist community and the conspiracy theory community, he is, and has been for the past 20 or so years. However, those are seriously underground communities, and its really only through Google Watch that he got any interest beyond those very underground communities, where most people's names are never released to the public. Thanks to Google Watch, his name was released, he was interviewed, etc etc. Yahoo Watch was really just a tag on to Google Watch, while Scroogle was almost always mentioned alongside Google Watch as they compliment each other. So then the issue is Wikipedia Watch. It is, in a lot of ways, just a tag along for Google Watch, because he created it claiming that Wikipedia is an agent of Google, and that everyone here is a CIA agent (or at least enough CIA agents to force us all to be brainwashed in to going along with the CIA agenda). All CIA agents put up your hand so that we know who you are! Come on, anyone? But see the big issue here is this - is Wikipedia Watch just Daniel Brandt? If it is, then merge and be done with it. If not, then don't. Whilst he does go on about his personal views, its not just about him, because he mentions all sorts of other people that were affected by Wikipedia, and it has been contributed to by more people than him. Is it notable? I've counted 15 international news sources that have mentioned it. By my mind, that makes WP:WEB quite happily. Sure, most of them are in some way related to the Seigenthaler affair, but not all. So the issue is that - if we wipe this, then can we justify keeping things like Daniel Brandt? We can hardly suggest that he as an individual is more notable than his pieces of work. Or do we think that Bill Gates is more notable than Microsoft? Maybe we should merge Microsoft in to Bill Gates as well. And Windows and everything else as well... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just another bit. Google Watch Watch has its own page, with less media coverage, and is a much smaller site - on virtually the same topic. So if this gets deleted, then so should that one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er, no. It does not have its own page. It has a redirect to Chris Beasley. Which you know, because you were the one who created the redirect. Less than twenty-four hours ago. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? I'd hate to think that you created a redirect from Google Watch Watch to Chris Beasley just so you could argue that we have to keep Wikipedia Watch for consistency, but I find it hard to construct any other explanation for you creating it and then misdescribing it here as an article rather than a redirect -- without disclosing that it only exists due to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I put in the redirect, but I didn't write the Chris Beasley article. I for one think that it should be Google Watch Watch with a redirect from Chris Beasley (i.e. other way around to what it is now) but hey, either way. And if Google Watch Watch has next to no media coverage, then Chris Beasley has even less. Outside of Google Watch Watch he is unheard of. Anyone who votes delete on this should put Google Watch Watch/Chris Beasley up for deletion, because there is no way in hell that that is more notable than Wikipedia Watch. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're not answering the question. You're saying that it is unacceptable to have Wikipedia Watch described at Daniel Brandt and have a redirect pointing to it. You seem to be claiming that for consistency, Wikipedia Watch has to have its own article, Wikipedia Watch, because after all, Google Watch Watch has its own article, doesn't it? But in point of fact, this is not the case, and you know it's not the case, so it seems that what you're trying to claim now is that Google Watch Watch is automatically so much less notable than Wikipedia Watch that if Wikipedia Watch doesn't get a separate article, Google Watch Watch shouldn't get any coverage -- a premise that I find extremely specious, to say the least. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- What? Anyway, this web site has had major international news coverage and meets WP:WEB. And yes, Google Watch Watch does have its own article, and has for quite some time. As stated elsewhere, Google Watch Watch is NOT a site - its an article. Yes, that article has been referenced elsewhere, but that's just it - its an article. Now, if Wikipedia Watch was only 1 article, sure, same deal. But its not. It currently has 4 articles on the site. Granted that's not a lot, but Google Watch was notable when it only had 4 articles on its site too. Wikipedia Watch is a site. Whilst it started off quite personal, it has grown beyond just his personal campaign. Anyway, please stop adding "Outing" to the Daniel Brandt article. Your reasons, that it is "proving" that he is hypocriticial is POV. You might think he is hypocritical, but that's just your opinion, and it doesn't belong there. Instead of just having "Outing" in there, you should write how some people think he is hypocritical. Not everyone does. Most activists would think that he is far from hypocritical. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss that link, since that is not even the article under AfD. Kindly stop dragging things off-topic? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- What? Anyway, this web site has had major international news coverage and meets WP:WEB. And yes, Google Watch Watch does have its own article, and has for quite some time. As stated elsewhere, Google Watch Watch is NOT a site - its an article. Yes, that article has been referenced elsewhere, but that's just it - its an article. Now, if Wikipedia Watch was only 1 article, sure, same deal. But its not. It currently has 4 articles on the site. Granted that's not a lot, but Google Watch was notable when it only had 4 articles on its site too. Wikipedia Watch is a site. Whilst it started off quite personal, it has grown beyond just his personal campaign. Anyway, please stop adding "Outing" to the Daniel Brandt article. Your reasons, that it is "proving" that he is hypocriticial is POV. You might think he is hypocritical, but that's just your opinion, and it doesn't belong there. Instead of just having "Outing" in there, you should write how some people think he is hypocritical. Not everyone does. Most activists would think that he is far from hypocritical. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're not answering the question. You're saying that it is unacceptable to have Wikipedia Watch described at Daniel Brandt and have a redirect pointing to it. You seem to be claiming that for consistency, Wikipedia Watch has to have its own article, Wikipedia Watch, because after all, Google Watch Watch has its own article, doesn't it? But in point of fact, this is not the case, and you know it's not the case, so it seems that what you're trying to claim now is that Google Watch Watch is automatically so much less notable than Wikipedia Watch that if Wikipedia Watch doesn't get a separate article, Google Watch Watch shouldn't get any coverage -- a premise that I find extremely specious, to say the least. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I put in the redirect, but I didn't write the Chris Beasley article. I for one think that it should be Google Watch Watch with a redirect from Chris Beasley (i.e. other way around to what it is now) but hey, either way. And if Google Watch Watch has next to no media coverage, then Chris Beasley has even less. Outside of Google Watch Watch he is unheard of. Anyone who votes delete on this should put Google Watch Watch/Chris Beasley up for deletion, because there is no way in hell that that is more notable than Wikipedia Watch. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Er, no. It does not have its own page. It has a redirect to Chris Beasley. Which you know, because you were the one who created the redirect. Less than twenty-four hours ago. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? I'd hate to think that you created a redirect from Google Watch Watch to Chris Beasley just so you could argue that we have to keep Wikipedia Watch for consistency, but I find it hard to construct any other explanation for you creating it and then misdescribing it here as an article rather than a redirect -- without disclosing that it only exists due to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
*Frankly, I am weary of Brandt's hatemongering and disrespect for our body of work. He has no compunctions about tarring us all with the same brush because of whatever indignities he has been subjected to. The best we can do is report each and every facet of his efforts, provided they cross pre-existing criteria for inclusion. Heck, let's make him a Featured Article candidate. Why? Because we can. Because it's fighting dirt with a big vacuum cleaner. Because it's a little bit zany and more than a little, as the French call it, bartesque. Keep/Rewrite --Agamemnon2 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC). Having been blackballed by Mr Brandt, I hereby shut the hell up about the topic. Changing vote to Abstain. --Agamemnon2 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, to keep the main article's size bounded to reasonable limits. - Bevo 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and delete Daniel Brandt, Chris Beasley, Google Watch, and Google Watch Watch as well. The only Wikipedia recognition Brandt deserves so far is his mention on John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. This whole trailer-trash drama means nothing to 99.9 percent of the planet. If you don't believe me, go out in the street and try to find ANYONE who's ever heard of Daniel Brandt. We'll leave the porch light on for you. wikipediatrix 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd think that Google Watch is sufficiently notable though. I had heard of that soon after it came out in 2002. As for the others, I don't know. The thing is that most of his activities were basically anonymous, so, whilst he probably did do a lot of notable stuff, you can't really attribute it to him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Musn't self censor stuff about ourselves and this site looks notable, SqueakBox 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep--Blueslipper 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC).Surely people are not here to censor critics of wikipedia.
- Merge into Criticisms of Wikipedia. karmafist 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - If and when the site is notable for something other than wikipedians hoaxing it, the article can be recreated. WAS 4.250 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to Daniel Brandt. No need for a separate page. Grue 18:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete to brand't article. This stuff's already covered there. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, please — Dan | talk 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As per WP:ASR, if this were about web site "A" that critisizes web site "B", we would say it was "not notable" --rogerd 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if I agreed with the sentiments of some here that this is an obscure web site of interest to no one and irrelevant to wikipedia (which I do not), then it would still look bad if this were deleted. Wikipedia is not without its flaws and to delete articles like this would create the impression that these flaws are being covered up. --SpinyNorman 04:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlike Google Watch, Wikipedia Watch does not yet seem to be individually notable. This can be covered in Brandt's article. Gamaliel 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Much of what is covered in Wikipedia Watch is already mentioned in Brandt's own entry. No need for two pages that say essentially the same thing, especially when Brandt seems to be the power behind Wikipedia Watch in the first place. As another one of his exploits, it is better off there. - RPIRED 15:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Deleting an anti-Wikipedia site hobbles the concept of NPOV coverage. Articles involving individuals or entities critical of Wikipedia should be handled with care. I do think Brandt should be capped at, say, a maximum of five *prefix*-Watch site entries on Wikipedia, though. For his own good. Any more, and he won't have time to eat. Adrian Lamo 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep whether we like it or not the Siegenthaler affair has exposed Wikipedia to controversy, we should not shy away from this. PatGallacher 12:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - More notable than a crapload of stuff I've nominated before and kept. - Hahnchen 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia - as per Karmafist. Svest 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
- Keep, even if we dislike it. --badlydrawnjeff 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per rogerd's excellent reasoning. Agnte 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn website founded two months ago. If such one is allowed anything else goes. Pavel Vozenilek 04:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's reached a level of Notoriety now that leaves it warranting inclusion --Irishpunktom\talk 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wales says:
I copied the below subsection from User talk:Jimbo Wales. WAS 4.250 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Are personal attacks now acceptable?
Suppose I were to send a hoax email to the subject of a Wikipedia article, and then write up the results (haha! got him!) on the talk page and in the article. The subject of the Wikipedia article also happens to be a Wikipedian.
Would that be: (a) good traditional encyclopedia research, or (b) an egregious personal attack?
I say (b), but the Wikipedia community (including several admins) says (a).
Oh, and the article subject/Wikipedia user happens to be very unpopular (in fact has been blocked from Wikipedia). Does the answer depend on that? Should it?
See User:Grue/Brandt for details. Mirror Vax 22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No it is completely unacceptable behavior. Very disappointing. We are Wikipedians and for me that means something.--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you think that I should include "Attacks on Wikipedia Watch" as a sub section? Happy to remove that. Can also include another section "Criticisms of Wikipedia Watch" as well if you like. I see that Jimbo's comments have been quoted in the Daniel Brandt article as criticisms of it. Are there any other published comments criticising it? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete And while we're at it, destroy the Brandt article too. (unsigned anonymous comment 14:48, 21 December 2005 86.137.180.163)
- Keep This is becoming a part of Wikipedia history, and Mr. Brandt has thrust himself into the public spotlight because of it. He fights for privacy, but revels in the attention. I believe that this page, with a bit of work could become a great summary of a controversial event in Wikipedia's history. --DaiTengu 01:17, 23 December 2005 (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.
