Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination)

Commentary originally posted following the opinion of User:Vyvyan Ade Basterd
Note: this commentary moved here as it is repetitive of points already made by the same editors. Risker (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Honesty would be to acknowledge what would have happened to this nomination and this article if it did not involve Brandt. Honesty would be to acknowledge that in the whole 'Brandt story' which supposedly distorts these debates to keep these articles, nothing has actually changed in the last year, not to WEB, to the article, or to Brandt's notability in the non-Wikipedia world. Honesty would be to acknowledge the true effect the Brandt presence brings to the 'free and fair' nature of this debate. An honest assesment against WEB is ultimately not what the closure of this debate will represent. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe this would have been deleted years ago had it not involved Brandt. I believe it was kept because people like you obsessed with the "Wikipedia vs Brandt" war see it as some sort of defeat, a giving in to someone you don't like. What has changed over time is that less people remember that episode and so more people objectively look at the article and say "we don't need this". Time here has given most people here some level of objectivity. On the other hand, the number and tone of your posts here seems to tell another story (about you).--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you might have a point if I had ever commented on Brandt ever, before now. And for the record, I have no retirements, renames, rtv's, or any other bullshit in my contribs history. I can honestly claim I am looking at this objectively and from a current perspective, unnaffected by 'knowing the story', or wanting to push an agenda. The only influence on me of the actual Brandt backstory is my knowledge about Brandt and his Hivemind project, which is no thanks to you. And my view on that and its effect on the deabte, is clear and stated, like everything else I've posted, unlike others. You are known for wanting to push the envelope, because the site's current policies are not to your liking, so we can examine your interest and baggage here if you really want, and how objective you might or might not be. I've stated my true views here, time and again. I come to this debate with zero agenda except respect for the site, and it policies and procedures as they stand currently. And the hilarious part of your post is, my detailed knowledge of Brandt was very low until recently, but, everything I have picked up about him since has been gained as much from external sources as it has from trawling through 'courtesy blanked' discussions, despite the fact his name still appears in multiple articles, stemming from his own notability. If you and others had the decency to have this debate properly, fairly, and inline with all other site-wide norms, instead of pretending this Afd is something it is not, I very much doubt that it would be the keep side that was the one that looked like it had an agenda. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you've researched this as you say, you'll know we've had that debate endlessly and openly to the point of boredom. Thankfully, this looks like being an end of it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I didn't expect you to have anything to say in reply, but the admission that you have only ever seen this as a battle to be won by fair means or foul, is telling. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no such admission, can you point it out to me? Chillum  19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Endlessly" and "thankfully" - read between the lines Chillum. If he disputes it, then we can have a look to see if he has ever produced any new arguments in this "endless" debate, or whether it has simply beeen a case of nominate again and again, rehash again and again, tweak a bit here, embellish a bit there, hide a bit over there, and when you finally hit the jackpot with a screwy Afd like this, be "thankful" it is "finally over". These are not the words of someone who does not see this as a long campaign to be won or lost, nor does it sound like someone who has ever been satisfied with any prior community decision. Infact, who are we kidding, that post is a plain and simple victory dance. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your "reading between the lines" is hampering your ability to assume good faith. I think you are seeing things that are not there. Chillum  22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are not there= quite literally. And I'm very happy Mickmacnee to "have a look", indeed I wish he would, but I hate to puncture his righteous rhetorical balloon of assuming bad faith with my mere facts, but he will find that I have never nominated this article for deletion and indeed have never before expressed an opinion in any of its previous deletion debates.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is too late by far to start mentioning abf after your 17:47 post. The distinction between 'these' debates, and commenting in other Brandt discussions/requests/dramas/side-bars, is noted. MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And after a cursory look of these specific debates, since you insisted, I would indeed have been surprised if you had expressed an opinion in the first one. Should I even bother checking the others? Chillum has it half right, it is indeed hard to see properly when its foggy. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for Scott not treating this issue as one long battle for a very long time, why I am finding stuff like this, without even really looking? Heaven knows what shocks I might turn up w.r.t. people's comments here, if I actually started looking properly, with my impressionable yet objective eyes, free of any pre-conceptions about Brandt. Your average 70s Communist Government was straighter than this Afd. It's beyond contemptible. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While we really do appreciate your contempt, is it really helpful towards the current debate? Chillum 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)