| Revision as of 22:50, 4 December 2009 view sourceInkSplotch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users821 edits →Google Watch: delete← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:24, 27 January 2013 view source NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits add drv |
| (159 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2009 December 12}}</noinclude> |
| ⚫ |
===]=== |
|
|
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} |
|
|
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google_Watch}}</ul></div> |
|
|
:{{la|Google_Watch}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(] · )</noinclude> |
|
|
:({{findsources|Google_Watch}}) |
|
|
Non-notable, out-of date, drivel, see the article's talk page (comment at bottom) and . ] (]) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::That it's notable seems to have been confirmed in past deletion discussions - if there are problems with the content, identify and fix them. --] (]) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''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. ] 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? ] (]) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To stop Misplaced Pages'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.--] (]) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|
* '''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.) --] (]) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
===]=== |
|
::Or perhaps you could do us the courtesy of explaining it to us? An incomprehensible sentence can hardly serve as an argument for deletion.--] (]) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
''The result was '''Merge''' to ]. The actual discussion has been ] but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). <span style="color:red">'''No further edits should be made to this page.'''</span>''. {{NOINDEX}}<!-- inserted using Template:afd-privacy --></div> |
|
::I would rather this is decided by uinvolved people according to normal Misplaced Pages notability standards, than by those "in the know" with special priorities. That goes for both sides. --] (]) 22:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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.--] 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Delete & redirect''' to ] where this is largely already covered. ] (]) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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 ''']''' 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::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).--] (]) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. ] 21:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Delete''' - very similar to the previous ''Misplaced Pages-Watch'' AfD. It's a non-notable website, fails ], 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 ] where it's already mentioned. But no way does it warrant an article of it's own - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''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. --] (]) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
