Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination)

Google Watch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, out-of date, drivel, see the article's talk page (comment at bottom) and this. Paz y Unidad (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it's notable seems to have been confirmed in past deletion discussions - if there are problems with the content, identify and fix them. --Kotniski (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What agenda do you have to push, Kotnitski? Remember, this is not the first time you've been hanging around articles relating to Daniel Brandt. This was you in April 2008, trying to get Daniel Brandt listed on a surname page listing notable people with the last name "Brandt". I see this as an attempt at baiting, and it's obvious that you have an agenda to push regarding this. So, what is it? Paz y Unidad (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop Wikipedia's readers from being deprived of good information just because a few obsessed people don't like it, I suppose. What's yours? You seem very new here to be nominating controversial articles for deletion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't particularly like the precedent we're setting here, but I admit that it's not good to do anything half-assed. (If this comment doesn't make sense to you, it's probably best you avoid this deletion discussion.) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you could do us the courtesy of explaining it to us? An incomprehensible sentence can hardly serve as an argument for deletion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather this is decided by uinvolved people according to normal Wikipedia notability standards, than by those "in the know" with special priorities. That goes for both sides. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no real assertion of notability in the article I can see. Yes, it got some passing mentions, but not even enough interest for anyone to be arsed writing a decent article and keeping it up to date.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Criticism of Google where this is largely already covered. RMHED (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outdated article, no real assertion of notability, until recently used as a borderline attack page against a living person. First do no harm, etc GTD 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, note I'm not even voting here, but that's another argument that I'd like to see explained. None of the recent versions of the article that I've looked at contain any kind of attacks against living people (and anyway, it's not past versions of the article that we consider when doing deletion).--Kotniski (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — piecing together an encyclopedia article on a website (or pretty much anything else) based on a few passing mentions in news reports is really bad practice and I see no evidence that better sourcing is available, or ever will be. *** Crotalus *** 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - very similar to the previous Wikipedia-Watch AfD. It's a non-notable website, fails WP:WEB, particularly point 1, and has fallen into obscurity. The references relate primarily to the site's owner, and the site itself really only gets a passing mention. Indeed, two of the refs don't mention the site at all, yet others are 404'd, are NN blogs, or even Slashdot comments(!!). At best, create a redirect to Criticism of Google where it's already mentioned. But no way does it warrant an article of it's own - Alison ^❤ 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking back at the history and prior noms, I can see why it squeeked by deletion in the past. However, the attention it got previously doesn't seem to have borne out into real notability. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]