Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs) at 06:14, 15 April 2006 (→[] (2nd nom)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, but actually it only serves to feed and exacerbate that same silly foolishness. It feeds trolls, and it is, in itself, basically trolling. --Doc 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 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\ 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 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Google returns the Misplaced Pages 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\ 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Gamaliel above Tom Harrison 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 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete. Coverage in Brandt article is more than enough; redirect might be useful. .:.Jareth.:. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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)
• Merge to Daniel Brandt. Ziggurat 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cosign, another vote for Merge. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 13 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 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As in the case of Misplaced Pages Review, deletion makes it look like Misplaced Pages 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 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 05:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)