Deletion of Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination)

Comment: Article does not conform to . Nothing else needs to be said
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: this is a well-sourced article that clearly meet  criterion number 1. This has been cited by reliable news sources on at least two separate occasions (the Seigenthaler and Essjay controversies in 2005 and 2007 respectively) so does not fall under the auspices of . #Notability is not temporary|Notability is not temporary so just because the site has been quiet since then does not mean that we should delete the article - it was notable at the time and therefore it continues to merit an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:N)

Comment: Fails all 3 criteria of . Has not "been ''the'' subject of" (my italics) '''any''' "non-trivial published works". Of the 7 independent, non-link-dead sources currently in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per the interpretation of  by Kevin, I do not believe this subject to be notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The longest media mention in the article is the zdnet interview, which has a single sentence describing the web site. Per  criteria #1 this kind of mention is specifically excluded (''a brief summary of the nature of the content'') from demonstrating notability. All the other mentions are the site name only, with no coverage of the content itself. This does not come close to meeting any of the criteria at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: in agreement with Nomoskedasticity, Thryduulf, DGG. I think the article is perhaps on the borderline of  notability, but I also have trouble with the disclosure statement beyond what's in the nomination that suggests , which I can't support. Bottom line is I wouldn't have thought to nominate for deletion if I had read the article prior to reading this page; the story behind the creation of the article and the arguments for deletion don't convince me it's a good idea
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:IDL)

Comment: the nomination arguments do not stand criticism, as laready explained. The owner's wish does not matter: tis is not  issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Multiple independent mention in RS, that's a pass for .  Notability is not temporary.  Nomination is largely based on , puffed up with imaginary BLP concerns to support or trumph a weak rationale, and irrelevant mention if Brandt would like the article to go
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDL)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The article appears with the natural |puffery of an article that has survived multiple AfDs while having recieved little mention from reliable sources.  In part I think this is because we are concerned with not silencing our opposition, although in this case the owner does not wish for it to be featured here.  Aside from all the us vs. them hubbub, the website doesn't meet  as it hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources. The sources given are only passing coverage and this particular website isn't the main subject of the commentary in any
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFF||WP:WEB)

Comment: Please, folks, let's debate the article on its own merits. If this were the fifth nomination over the period of, say, eight months, I'd agree; but it's not. The first AfD was in '''2005''', about four years ago. More to the point, |consensus can change. Therefore, arguments for keeping this article based solely on the fact that it has survived multiple prior AfDs are weak and mostly irrelevant. This article covers a topic on an obscure website with little or no notability. As mentioned above, self-references should be avoided unless the topic is unquestionably significant in real life; this website is mere navel-gazing and nothing more. I agree with the nomination statement and I believe deletion is appropriate. (FWIW, I also have a weak COI with the topic, but it doesn't affect my ability to judge this article in a neutral manner
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: The search links above demonstrate that the site is referenced in numerous news sources, books and scholarly papers and so passes our notability guideline.  As we have several articles covering this general topic area including Wikipedia and Criticisms of Wikipedia, we might consider merging the material into one of them but that is not done by deletion.  Complete |suppression of the name as a useful search link would be contrary to |policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per  per Nomoskedasticity. I realize Two Minutes Hate|the project hates Daniel Brandt, but the monthly AFD's of articles related to him, even after a long sabbatical, are thoroughly tiresome especially going on the 5th year at this point, and just because we are supposed to hate someone is a lousy reason to delete info related to them, which is otherwise thoroughly and reliably sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: My disagreement with these arguments that stress the word ''significant'' is that multiple independent sources cite WW as an example of reasons to question Wikipedia's reliability as a research source. Three found quickly on Google Scholar are: http://nseus.org/bgpaper1.pdf, a research paper; http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPATAPP11781693&id=roinAAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=%22Wikipedia+Watch%22&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=%22Wikipedia%20Watch%22&f=false, a patent application and http://ethesys.lib.fcu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/getfile?URN=etd-0630108-133810&filename=etd-0630108-133810.pdf, a Feng Chia University student thesis, all formally describing WW as an important source of information regarding challenges to Wikipedia reliability. This leads me to conclude that, as Wikipedia ranks somewhere in the bottom half of the top ten of internet traffic statistics worldwide on several lists, and its use as a research tool is questioned, WW will be referenced in historical discussions of Wikipedia's development in the course of years and decades to come. The individual citations in the article do not tell the complete story. They can be dissected and have their significance questioned, however  also mentions "historical significance" for which the site's notability can be secured. I was hesitant to point out the use of  terms beginning with "largely" in the nomination and the overall  tone of the nomination, however these weaknesses in the nomination place an onus on those who support deletion to provide irrefutable evidence that the site is not notable. This has not been done, and therefor the article ''does not'' "have to go" based on 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEASEL||WP:IDL||WP:WEB)

Comment: per Kevin, Sam Blacketer and the nom. Let's be honest here; the only reason we have this article is because it involves enwiki. If someone had set up a site called ''Conservapedia Watch'' we would delete any related artcle per . I he brags about how his outing of this or that admin "forced us" to delete it then so be it. Let him rant. If you look at this objectively it's an obvious ''delete'' per  and that's all that matters here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Seems to fail ; no reason to make an exception in this case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to Criticism of Wikipedia) - the coverage in reliable sources is not ''significant'', as required for  and . Working from what we've got in the sources available, a mention of this website in Criticism of Wikipedia or Siegenthaler incident would be acceptable, but there isn't enough to justify an independent article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:GNG)

Comment: A |self-reference of a kind and one to avoid unless clear notability is established - which it is not. There is much in the suggestion that this article was started to preserve information previously contained in a |biography which was thought (accurately, as it turned out) likely to be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR||WP:BLP)

Comment: Per . The site itself seems ancient (in internet years), outdated, and no longer relevant if it ever was. Some historical value for those interested in such things, maybe, but not notable enough for a WP article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)