Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (3rd nomination)

Google Watch

Ignoring who operates the site, is there really anything that makes Google Watch warrant an article? The references are weak and a quick check shows the site is no longer indexed by Google. This site lacks notability and the presence of an article just makes this project look more like a revenge platform than a credible encyclopedia George The Dragon (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that sort of outrageous? Google no longer indexes Google Watch (I wonder why?). For that reason alone we have a duty to keep the article so people can find the web site, considering Google is unlikely to de-index the article about Google Watch.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Robots.txt for an idea why. -- how do you turn this on 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting note. Still means that Wikipedia gives it a presence which it apparently is fighting against.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A glance over the previous AFD shows there are apparently sources out there. I don't care to look right now, but just noting this. -- how do you turn this on 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's open to interpretation, though. The articles mentioned in the previous AFD appear to be more about Daniel Brandt and Public Information Research than Google Watch - and there is now nothing recent to cite Google Watch and PIR being linked, nor Daniel Brandt and Google Watch being linked. WHOIS, for instance, no longer returns Daniel Brandt as the site owner George The Dragon (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful article. notable. founder Daniel Brandt should have an article too.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a particularly helpful comment, please keep ontopic here. This isn't about an article on Brandt. -- how do you turn this on 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and interesting don't apply as they aren't valid reasons for a keep. Notable and sourced do count. Not sure what the NOM criteria is exactly, assuming it is just notability, which this easily passes. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources? Only one actually mentions GW, and it's written by a very non-reputable website. -- how do you turn this on 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must you badger every person who gives an opinion here? Consider reading an essay I am working on called Don't Bludgeon The Process. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going comment here, expect someone to reply. This is a discussion, not a vote. The sources are extremely poor, so saying "there's sources" isn't good enough - I am simply pointing this fact out to you. If you don't want to be "badgered", don't comment. -- how do you turn this on 02:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you turn this on, can challenge anyone's position on the issue if he wants, as long as there is a least a somewhat reasonable expanation to do so. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see are a lot of citations for a different Google Watch, a sort of pro-Google news site that reports on new Google announcements and such. I only saw one RS-worthy cite for this article, from Salon.com. 70.53.189.94 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable. I will try to help out with finding additional sources in the next week or so, but I have no doubt to their existence (even if they're not needed for this to be kept). -- Ned Scott 05:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Four references were supplied during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (2nd nomination). At least three of those references are perfectly respectable references that fully comply with WP:RS. I am drawing a blank as to how a good faith nominator could overlook these references. I am drawing a blank as to how a good faith nominator could fail inform participants here of these four valid reliable sources.

Simon Crerar (April 5 2003). "Forget me nots". The Age. Retrieved 2008-10-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Leading the backlash is Daniel Brandt, the man behind Google Watch, whose main gripe is with the engine's PageRank technology that he says is not "uniquely democratic" as it claims, but "uniquely tyrannical", particularly against new websites. Google Watch provides a forum for those with an axe to grind with the search engine. Among the site's claims: that Google ignores all inquiries about its privacy policy, illegally stores pages that webmasters have removed and has no "data retention policies" - meaning it can easily access your previous search requests at any time. Google Watch also warns against adding Google's popular toolbar to your browser, suggesting the software records every web page you visit. Google Watch concedes that the engine's privacy policy is honest, but claims the toolbar updates itself without asking. "If you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk," says Brandt.

Dave Gussow (April 14, 2003). "Despite popularly, Google under fire for privacy issues". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-10-11.

A site called Google-Watch.org nominated Google for a Big Brother award, calling it a "privacy time bomb" that collects too much personal data on its users and does too little to protect it. Ultimately, Google didn't win that dubious honor, and its defenders say there's little to back up the allegations.

So he started Google-Watch and listed nine complaints, ranging from how long Google's cookies linger on a user's hard drive before expiring to what the company might be doing with personal data to the genuinely conspiratorial. (Google's hiring of someone who once worked for the National Security Agency inspired this headline on one of Brandt's complaints: "Google hires spooks.") Brandt's the one who nominated Google for the Big Brother award. In an article posted this month, Danny Sullivan, editor of the Search Engine Watch industry newsletter and one of the top experts in the field, did a point-by-point analysis of the Big Brother allegations (www.searchenginewatch.com/sereport/03/04-bigbro.html). The company told Sullivan it does not gather any personally identifiable information. Sullivan's conclusions on the charges: They were baseless. Brandt's charges on Google and privacy also were shot down by Parry Aftab, who among other things is executive director of WiredSafety.org and a member of the board of Truste (www.truste.org), a nonprofit that helps Web sites develop privacy policies. "Google is no worse than any of the others, and in many cases it's better than the others," Aftab said. "There's a whole lot of stuff out on the Internet about each of us that we don't know about."

Sam Varghese (January 12, 2005). "Google critic releases source code for proxy". The Age. Retrieved 2008-10-11.

Daniel Brandt, who runs a non-profit public charity, Public Information Research, and is known for his Google-Watch site, said the step he had taken had implications for all search engines. "These engines crawl the public web without asking permission, and cache and reproduce the content without asking permission, and then use this information as a carrier for ads that generate private profit. We are convinced that if citizens scrape Google and strip the ads, and make the scraped results available as a nonprofit public service, that this is legal. This is especially the case if there are public policy concerns behind the scraping," he wrote. Brandt said Google Watch had been the biggest critic of Google and this was why the PIR had started the proxy.

Rich Ord (2005-01-13). "Daniel Versus Gooliath". web pro news. Retrieved 2008-10-11.

I spoke to Daniel Brandt of Google-Watch today about his latest article about Google Print and possible privacy implications. Daniel's long-standing issue with Google is its collection of individual user data, which he believes could be used against people.

I suggest the nominator consider showing his good faith by withdrawing this flawed nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any current references to show Brandt has an ongoing relationship with Google Watch? Are there any current references to show PIR has an ongoing relationship with Google Watch? And that four references were found at the previous AFD and subsequently not added to the article suggests, to me at least, keeping the article had more to do with getting "one over" Brandt than improving the encylopedia. If anything, at the very, very most, a quick mention of Google Watch could be made under Criticism of Google. For I do not believe there are any claims made by Google Watch that have not been made elsewhere, either before or since. George The Dragon (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It was mentioned that the administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (2nd nomination) did so because he thought the real life Seth Finkelstein had requested the articles. Surely such requests, if authenticated, should only be taken into account when the case for keeping the article is otherwise marginal. I didn't see the closing admin state they thought the case for keep was otherwise marginal. I just left the closing administrator a note asking him what steps he took to authenticate that the claim the request really came from the real Seth Finkelstein. Geo Swan (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin hasn't edited since July. -- how do you turn this on 14:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've confused something with the article about me. The administrator was correct there. My position about that hasn't changed. If you need to authenticate anything, feel free to email me at sethf at-sign sethf.com -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? More about Seth Finkelstein yet we are still not allowed to have an article about him? Insane. Why are all these critics and watch groups being targeted for deletion? Wiki-conspiracy, perhaps?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - SOFIXIT -- Kendrick7^talk 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Geo Swan. Someone please improve the article though. Sources exist, but the article right now is really poor. -- how do you turn this on 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FX _talk 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~although the site doesn't seem to exist anymore, it may be of historical interest.~~ my mistake, google-watch.org does exist. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query — Why does the URL in the {{Infobox Website}} redirect to Wikipedia-Watch.org? Happy Editing! — 72.75.82.202 (talk · contribs) _{04:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
- If you type google-watch.com manually in the address bar, the site is still there. It just doesn't like links coming in from wikipedia.140.247.241.192 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ROFL! The first thing it says is, "This domain may be for sale by its owner!" I say, "Speedy delete" — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - google-watch.org is the domain, not .com -- Kendrick7^talk 09:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Copy that ... still lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:WEB, IMHO. — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. The site's notability is marginal at best - a few scattered media mentions over years hardly cries out that it's of encyclopedic value. Combined with the downside of the article, that should tip the balance to deletion. Note - I realize this is different from many viewpoints expressed above. It is, however, my considered view of the question. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per GeoSwan's sources. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social club. Whatever internal political angle there is here is irrelevant to the fact that this topic clearly meets our criteria for inclusion. We can verify an article of sufficient length on a discrete, encyclopaedic topic. All else is WP:Problems and MMORPGism. the skomorokh 16:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely certain, but I believe that the owner purposefully told Google not to index it. At least, he said in a W-R topic that he instructed Google not to index Wikipedia-Watch for the time being. If Google Watch is not being indexed, I'm sure it's intended. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad Wikipedia is watching the watchers.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]