Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View

Coverage of Google Street View

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a directory, not a collection of indiscriminate information. This page is WP:SYNTH. Even Google itself does not have this kind of pages. Wikipedia is not in business to document timelines of each and every move of Google products. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not SYNTH, nor is it a directory. It's just a detailed bit of cartographic history. Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is WP:SYNTH mainly from primary sources. It is not a "cartographic history" it is a dubious self-written history of Google Maps. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it still isn't synth. Synth is when you combine facts to arrive at a novel conclusion. Per WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it is WP:SYNTH: the facts from primary source are combined to make a false impression about the state of the coverage. There is no secndary sources which directly discuss this particular topic in depth, hence original research it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - What false impression? Lem still fails to state what the supposed synthesis is. And there are certainly plenty of secondary sources which discuss the history of Street View in detail such as Inside Google Street View, Going Places: A History of Google Maps with Street View and Google Street View maps Greenland. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is going to be a long list of every place, town, city, metropolis, village, hamlet and a few more. That will make it an indiscriminate list of everything, falling foul of WP:NOT and coming close to WP:OR when not sourced. By now, most sources already fail WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another indiscriminate and hopelessly useless list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but the notion of this being a "useless list" is countered by the 40,022 page views the page has received in the last thirty days, a significant number. At any rate, the article is obviously useful for some of Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Google_Street_View. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Google Street View, while most of this article is OR, all that needs to be done is to remove the timeline of introductions as the rest is sourced anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you delete "inroductions" there is exactly 4 statements, sourced from Google press-releases about features, which are already in Google Street View#History and features. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - An informative list of updates to an important and popular product. This was discussed four years ago and the result was to keep. Pristino (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not WP:SYNTH as it provides only facts, not interpretation, and its not indiscriminate as it has a very clear scope (what Google Street view covers, and from when). There's certainly lots of scope to improve the article and its sourcing, but it covers a viable topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]