99:
whose sole aim is to counter a criticism made by Brandt against
Beasley. Indeed, not only should this article be deleted off Knowledge (XXG), but I really don't see the point in google-watch-watch even existing as a domain name. What a waste of $ 10/year domain name fees! He should have just written a post on a forum and be done with it.
98:
is a 1 page article. It is solely made to document why Chris
Beasley feels that Daniel Brandt was wrong to criticise him and wrong to criticise google. It is not a web site - it is an article. It has been in existence for what 2 years now and has not ever gone beyond being 1 single solitary page,
142:
I agree. Daniel Brandt is not widely known by name. But Google Watch is. Google Watch is without question notable. There should be a small amount of background about the author of Google Watch, Daniel Brandt, but it shouldn't go beyond that.
234:
228:
80:
211:
90:- I am not sure how this one got nominated, but there we go. I don't think that this is notable at all, and all of the information can be included in
17:
202:
356:
36:
215:
62:
341:
327:
311:
295:
275:
257:
240:
219:
193:
182:
161:
137:
117:
67:
355:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
151:
107:
48:. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them.
237:
73:
308:
179:
49:
339:
134:
147:
103:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
324:
176:
272:
336:
307:
controversy, but this site is not yet sufficiently notable to merit its own article.
126:
320:
304:
284:
254:
250:
172:
144:
130:
100:
91:
190:
157:
154:
113:
110:
335:
but prune(/remove the criticism section in particular) to avoid rehashing. --
288:
253:, but it's not a particularly notable site on its own (just one page!).
175:. And PLEASE, let's not rehash the Daniel Brandt deletion topic again.
95:
349:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
249:. It might deserve extremely brief mention in the article on
303:-- There's no compelling reason to ignore this facet of the
81:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch
79:
not sure who nominated this. It wasn't me. But see
94:(indeed I think that all of it already has been).
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
227:. 669 Google hits is not very many for a blog see
201:before the watchers disappear up their own arses.
359:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
271:as can be adequately covered there,
283:to provide alternate viewpoint on
96:http://www.google-watch-watch.org/
24:
129:article as well. Move it all to
1:
342:12:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
328:04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
312:23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
296:17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
276:00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
258:23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
241:16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
220:15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
194:15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
183:15:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
162:17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
138:13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
118:12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
68:19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
233:No Google News hits at all
376:
125:this article and also the
83:for a comparative article
352:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
267:with GoogleWatch and
238:Capitalistroadster
74:Google Watch Watch
160:
116:
367:
354:
293:
206:
150:
106:
66:
57:
34:
375:
374:
370:
369:
368:
366:
365:
364:
363:
357:deletion review
350:
289:
213:
204:
77:
65:
60:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
373:
371:
362:
361:
345:
344:
330:
314:
298:
278:
261:
260:
231:
230:
222:
210:
196:
185:
166:
165:
164:
120:
76:
71:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
372:
360:
358:
353:
347:
346:
343:
340:
338:
334:
331:
329:
326:
322:
318:
315:
313:
310:
306:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
286:
282:
279:
277:
274:
270:
266:
263:
262:
259:
256:
252:
248:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
235:
229:
226:
223:
221:
218:
217:
212:
208:
200:
197:
195:
192:
189:
186:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
141:
140:
139:
136:
135:wikipediatrix
132:
128:
127:Daniel Brandt
124:
121:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
97:
93:
89:
86:
85:
84:
82:
75:
72:
70:
69:
64:
58:
54:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
351:
348:
332:
321:Google Watch
316:
305:Google Watch
300:
290:
285:Google Watch
280:
268:
264:
251:Google Watch
246:
232:
224:
214:
198:
187:
173:Google Watch
168:
131:Google Watch
122:
92:Google Watch
87:
78:
51:
50:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
309:Adrian Lamo
158:Eventualist
155:Darwikinian
152:Wishy Washy
114:Eventualist
111:Darwikinian
108:Wishy Washy
63:yakkity yak
325:Jokestress
177:CarbonCopy
287:article.
273:SqueakBox
207:you know?
203:Just zis
269:redirect
255:*Dan T.*
145:Zordrac
101:Zordrac
56:Unction
52:Ξxtreme
247:Delete
225:Delete
199:Delete
191:Brimba
188:Delete
180:(talk)
148:(talk)
123:Delete
104:(talk)
88:Delete
333:Merge
319:with
317:Merge
301:Merge
291:Grue
281:Merge
265:Merge
171:with
169:Merge
16:<
216:AfD?
205:Guy,
337:Alf
323:.
133:.
236:.
209:/
59:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.