Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep, and before anyone asks, it has nothing to do with the number of votes. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scroogle[edit]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Watch Jonathan 666 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These subjects are notable for inclusion in the Daniel Brandt article, but all these spin-off Brandtcruft articles are utterly frivolous. What's next, a Daniel Brandt Series Template? His own Category? wikipediatrix 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. While there may be excessive Daniel Brandt related pages, the Wikipedia Scroogle page hands out concise information about the one item related to Daniel Brant that most readers will want to see. I came to this page because I was wondering what in the world Scroogle was. The article was helpful and informative. A better idea may be to get rid of the Daniel Brandt page, since he is more minor in the scope of things than the Scroogle page itself. Jeri Massi
- Keep since it's notable and is something one would expect to see in wikipedia. - DNewhall
- Delete 68.89.137.197 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Users perspective: It's quite handy since I am not interested in Daniel Brandt only scroogle and wouldn't have found the information otherwise.
- I agree with the previous user, I wouldn't have known Daniel Brandt by name but the information on Scroogle and its sister pages are highly informative, and have promoted awareness to me and numerous others. Kitty 00:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable development in anti-Google activism. Jokestress 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This informaion is usefull in the small focused form it is in. It seems obsurd someone would want to delete it. I find it usefull.
- Keep. People know of Scroogle, not Daniel Brandt. Scroogle should have its own entry
- Delete. It's an unauthorized scrape of Google, and it might make Google mad at Wikipedia. JennyLoo 00:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per wikipediatrix. -- Kicking222 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect with Google Watch. One gnews hit and it is /. and the article isn't even about scroogle! Kotepho 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but only after you've created the new site. And make it searchable. Nothing vague like "Brandt's personal sites." lizabeth83 5:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment article is unsourced and pretty poorly written to boot. No evidence this site meets WP:WEB. I suspect it does, hence I'm not rendering any opinion at this time, but if it survives it will just get AfD'd again unless someone actually interested in this topic cleans the article up.
--Isotope23 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I went to the Scroogle page not knowing about Brandt or Google Watch, and I think that it is good for Scroogle to have its own page. Having said that, I agree that the article needs work - and I might spend some time on it myself. Latch 00:01, 26 April 2006 (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.