Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of Google Street View

Development of Google Street View

An unnecessary detailed list on the devlopment of Street View, and mostly original research. Also, Google Street View already has a small, to-the-point table on this development. --FlagFreak ^TALK 14:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is not original research, and is far from it. This is all sourced information. This is a topic the media is following heavily, and numerous news articles detail when GSV has been added to different areas. The references provided very often show the dates in which the service was added to a particular place, and the reaction from the areas where it was added. Besides, there is still more work to be done on this page. The references are just a few of many that are available out there. The table on Google Street View does not show development, but is just an overview of areas covered. The information found on this page was previously on GSV, was not challenged there, and was split off as it grew. GSV, which was just introduced in other countries the other day, will only grow more over time, necessitating more information to be provided, not less. Sebwite (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem reasonable, information is being cited as needed, article has Under Construction tag reflecting improvements to come; yes, the author needs to be careful to avoid original research as the article progresses, but the "unnecessary" argument in the nomination doesn't persuade me. Townlake (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like Google Street View coverage areas, whose deletion is currently being debated, only with some additional information about when a city was put on the internet. Unless you have specific information about the precise dates that the photos were taken (as opposed to uploaded), the "history" of when sections of town were added to the internet is of no interest to anyone. The title implied that it would be about how the service itself was developed, which would actually be a worthwhile article. This is trivia that really is useless trivia, kind of like pinpointing to the minute when Ralph Malph was first introduced on Happy Days. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments 1) Ralph Malph is an American treasure. 2) I personally found the article interesting even if it's incomplete. Given the message implied by the Under Construction tag, seems reasonable to me to give the article's creator (and the community) a little room to work on the article - heck, it's only been up two days. Townlake (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has the nature of a progress report and so is contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not the news. Perhaps it might usefully be migrated to Wikinews? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does not meet exclusion guidelines under WP:NOT#NEWS. News articles like the ones used on this page are perfectly valid under WP:N and WP:RS, which alone should be grounds for a Speedy Keep. Sebwite (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't see how any aspect of WP:SK is in play here. Townlake (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This had already been deleted twice, here and here. Can this be "speedy delete" for recreated material? All he did was change the name to "Development of Google Street View", and put the information in a slightly different layout. No matter what you call it, its still the same article with the same information.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as mentioned, this article contains material that was previously a part of Google Street View, was well accepted there, and has been split off since for the purpose of improvement. One user, FlagFreak, seems determined to have it deleted for some reason, and seems to be getting a lot of other delete requests through the "follow the leader" approach, which gives the false appearance of concensus to delete material that perfectly fits on Wikipedia. Sebwite (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask that you assume good faith. Please don't claim that the process is illegitimate in this venue. If you felt that they process was flawed in the previous delete debate, you may bring it up at WP:DRV. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment For the record, I didn't realize similar articles had been deleted twice before, and I understand the frustration of those who have already had similar discussions over this material. That said, I'm sticking with my Keep for now because, in my opinion, this idea does seem to have potential as a useful timeline. Townlake (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY Weak keep This article is well sourced and presumably will not swell to an indiscriminate list. It is, however, very similar to the previous article which was deleted at AfD. It isn't word for word, but I would say that >60% of the article is the same. Hopefully this article is improved further and it becomes a success story (article gets deleted, new and better article forms from the ashes). But I can see where people are coming from who are frustrated over the seeming recreation of deleted material. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok, I'm not a registered user, so that will probably be erased, by I'd just like to say that this is apparently NOT original research as everything is sourced substantially, and this article is actually useful here. I think that if it's the 3rd time people are trying to recreate this article is because it's a needed article. 90.6.183.151 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]