Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of Google Street View

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 9 July 2008 (Closing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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. Sebwite, if this was split off from another article, you can undo its removal there if consensus agrees with you, although I can't imagine that this level of detail would be accepted in the main article. An unadopted policy proposal has no bearing on this discussion.  Sandstein  20:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Google Street View

Development of Google Street View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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 Neutral 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]
  • Nope. You have as much right to participate as I do. What the guide for deletion recommends (the doc I linked) is that you present evidence rather than opinion about an article (because it is easy to use IP addresses to express opinions more than once per editor). You are, of course, welcome to register and help us improve the encyclopedia if you wish. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. Let's not throw words like violation around. The article was created directly from the content in AfD (comment notwithstanding) with the "underconstruction" tag applied. It went two days without a major edit. while not the "several" that the template recommends, the assumption that the page would be unedited isn't far out of reach. The construction and "in progress" templates are not protection from deletion, especially in this case, where the article appeared to be substantial recreation of previously deleted material. In this case, we need to respect AfD as a process and defer a little to mechanisms designed to prevent that process from being gamed. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree. This is something that has been followed by the media from day 1 when GSV was introduced in May 2007. Also, see WP:USELESS - saying there is "no point" is not a valid reason for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after zooming in. Simply not notable. Whatever may be said about the development of this relatively secondary feature of a notable website/service is possible to say in Google Street View. When not serving as an indiscriminate list, this verges on being a magazine article or essay. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: 1.) I am currently working on this proposal that would define the guidelines for proposing a page with the {{construction}} tag for deletion, and I welcome and encourage everyone here to comment. It would only allow for deletion of such pages for a limited number of circumstances, such as blatant spam, attacks, or copyright violations. It would not allow for deletion in the event of recreation of deleted material, as such a tag can be placed there while the article is being improved since it was deleted. 2.) I am planning on challenging the current policy regarding speedy deletion of recreated material, especially with the {{construction}} tag. Many articles are deleted as a result of issues that can be corrected. I, personally, have recreated a large number of previously deleted articles, addressing the issues for which they were deleted, and using the {{construction}} tag along with hidden comments to let others know my plans. 3.) Also a part of the policies I am proposing is one to allow for more time upon a creator's request while an article is under construction. Though the template currently says "several days," and a bot will usually remove this tag if it is not edited at all for 7-10 days, part of my proposal is that creators of articles can state they need for time on the discussion page of an article. Since Wikipedia is completely a volunteer service that people edit in their spare time, and it is likely that a large percentage of editors have full time jobs and families, my proposal would be understanding of these time constraints. 4.) To the closing administrator: I am hoping this page will not be deleted, but would rather be kept or merged. Even if it is deleted, its material will be returned to Google Street View, where it was before, and was not challenged there, which is akin to a merge. And most likely, as GSV is expanded to more places around the world in the coming months, there will come the need to create more articles like this one. So a deletion of this would only be temporary. Deleting would be an unwise choice. If you think your decision should be to delete, you should reconsider right now. Sebwite (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you of List of Google Street View locations, which was never completed? Much more than a week. --FlagFreak TALK 12:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep in mind, this week, I have been busy working on the proposal I described above, so I've done little work on Google or any other articles. I am trying to address situations like this one and a variety of others I have been through or observed, should they come up in the future. Sebwite (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:NOTDIR, WP:L, Recreation of deleted material, WP:MOS. --FlagFreak TALK 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Development_of_Google_Street_View&oldid=224654623"