Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches


 * 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. It appears some like the historical value, and there is already a bot request, so I'll drop a {historical} on them. -Splash talk 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC) ====Articles which are number one for one word Google searches, Google first-page results, What Google liked, Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Top 10 Google hits, L-Z==== Unless we get a bot to do it, this is unmaintainable. I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is famous and gets a lot of google hits, but this is not a useful way of indicating that. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is ugly, of very low utility, and, as nom. says, unmaintainable. Xoloz 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete All Vote amended to included all listed pages. Xoloz 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Unmaintainable and not particularly useful.  This is mere trivia.  Rossami (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all Unmaintainable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Articles which are number one for one word Google searches can be merged with Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits etc. But I find this information interesting, even if it is out of date.  If you want to tag it as historical, that's fine, but there's no need to delete it.  There's already a request on Bot requests to update this information. -- Beland 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and get a bot, or robot-like human, to maintain it. It's of eminent importance, I humbly submit, because it shows what people most use Wikipedia for&mdash;and thus indirectly shows where we should allocate our limited resources, where our quality is highest, etc.  And it's a great gauge of success overall.  --zenohockey 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - tag as historical, put a request on the bot page, and forget about it until some botmeister is kind enough to update it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I rarely vote on AfDs, but these pages are just stupid.  Kelly Martin (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's not overload Google's servers keeping it updated, with a bot or otherwise.  I'm all for pages like Awareness statistics, but these pages are pretty pointless. --Idont Havaname 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * del, for all the reasons for deleting already stated. encephalon  22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ashibaka (tock) 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep at least Articles which are number one for one word Google searches. I sometimes put things in. How Jew got into the list is significant - many of the others are just curious.  --Henrygb 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment the Template:mfd tag on the first page pointed at an empty discussion until I just redirected it. So strictly the clock should restart. I have not bothered with the other pages. --Henrygb 15:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as historical interest and tagged appropriately--A Y  Arktos 20:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just found out about this and it provides some interesting information, can you keep it? Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 24 November 2005


 * 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.