Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Information Research


 * 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. Perhaps a redirect or merge will do just fine IMO. Mailer Diablo 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Public Information Research
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Watch Jonathan 666 17:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. PIR is the organization behind Google Watch, Scroogle and other notable entities. Jokestress 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd have to call delete on this one. Brandt's article has more than enough. At the very least, merge and redirect to Daniel Brandt. NSL E (T+C) at 00:41 UTC (2006-04-19)
 * Keep or Merge (second choice). Gamaliel 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as wholly non-notable, unheard of outside of Wikipedia. 203.122.195.111 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the above user's other contributions (including AfD debates) have been removed because they are a "banned user" or "suspected sock puppet". heqs 19:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : The reputation of the person that posted an article for deletion has no bearing on the validity of the article, and to suggest that it does is a logical fallacy. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment : Removing voices you disagree with is a good way to win a wiki war. Calling people banned users and sock puppets is great too.  See http://lir.wikipediareview.com/ and User:Zordrac/deletions . 203.122.195.111 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone's banned, their contributions may be deleted and reverted at any time. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 68.89.137.197 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, do not delete. heqs 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. 207.193.28.35 15:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - A very inconsequential organization. 4.230.162.238 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Strangeland 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all the Brandt pages. He doesn't want them anyway.  --Tbeatty 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. JennyLoo 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is probably the smallest nonprofit corporation on the planet. GeeGoo 00:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Figworth 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Daniel Brandt so that everybody can easily find all available information on this public figure. David Sneek 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to then Redirect to Daniel Brandt.
 * Delete second choice Smerge to Google Watch. I can't find any media coverage.  Serious WP:V problems.  "One public interest group, Public Information Research Inc. of San Antonio, runs scroogle.org, an Internet service that disguises the Internet address of searchers who want to run Google and Yahoo searches anonymously." is as much as I have been able to find.  There are a lot of other organizations with "Public information research" in their names =/. Kotepho 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per WP:V and WP:CORP (it fails the latter miserably, and not for profit, or for profit, it's still a company and the same guidelines should apply). And anyone that calls me a newbie is not only forgetting to be civil, but is just plain wrong. -- Wizardry Dragon 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Brandt's krankery aside, this hardly warrants its own article. Eusebeus 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Daniel Brandt.--Isotope23 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Daniel Brandt, do not keep. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no need to merge, all the info is already there. jucifer 16:09, 26 April 2006 (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.