Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackwatch


 * 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 was Delete -- JForget  00:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hackwatch

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article currently contains no content, and has no scope for expansion since the topic is a minor column in Private Eye magazine with nothing to say about it. All informative content here is amply covered in main Private Eye article. A redirect has sufficed until now, but is not strictly necessary since the article title itself is not a plausible search term; anyone looking specifically for information about this column itself would almost certainly go straight to the main magazine article instead. The article has recently been recreated, still with no content, and as such I propose deletion. The series of articles related to Private Eye suffers from excessive splitting (I am nominating another similar article immediately after this). Jdcooper (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Jdcooper (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As AFD is a discussion and not a vote, "delete as nom" is redundant. The act of nomination indicates your position. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as unexpandable, it's just a magazine's title for one of its pages. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COATRACK, just an excuse to include potshots from the column. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. All of the reasons so far cited are irrelevant.  The fact is that the article contains no material pertinent to its title.  The column in Private Eye focuses upon a particular journalist each week and lists articles which they have written which are absurd in some way.  It is impossible to see, other than giving a list of the writers who have been featured, how to give the article substance without relying exclusively on cuttings from the magazine.  Wikipedia is a little precious about using cuttings, even though this is valid within copyright law in certain circumstances (which would include Wikipedia).  However, this article cannot exist without reproducing big chunks of the magazine, which is why it needs deletion, never to be resurrected.   Guy (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.