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. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect as the mood strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not sure who nominated this. It wasn't me. But see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch for a comparative article

• Delete - 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 Google Watch (indeed I think that all of it already has been). http://www.google-watch-watch.org/ 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, whose sole aim is to counter a criticism made by Brandt against Beasley. Indeed, not only should this article be deleted off Wikipedia, 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. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article and also the Daniel Brandt article as well. Move it all to Google Watch. wikipediatrix 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Watch. And PLEASE, let's not rehash the Daniel Brandt deletion topic again. CarbonCopy (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Brimba 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete before the watchers disappear up their own arses. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 669 Google hits is not very many for a blog see [1]

No Google News hits at all [2].Capitalistroadster 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It might deserve extremely brief mention in the article on Google Watch, but it's not a particularly notable site on its own (just one page!). *Dan T.* 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with GoogleWatch and redirect as can be adequately covered there, SqueakBox 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to provide alternate viewpoint on Google Watch article.  Grue  17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- There's no compelling reason to ignore this facet of the Google Watch controversy, but this site is not yet sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Adrian Lamo 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Watch. Jokestress 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but prune(/remove the criticism section in particular) to avoid rehashing. --Alf ^melmac 12:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.