Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Google Street View

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 Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Google Street View

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

This article does not seem encyclopaedic. The main part of the article is near impossible to verify and accurately source. It is effectively Original Research. Furthermore, I don't believe that the information in the article would ever be useful to (m)any people. Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 10:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that this article should be deleted, mainly on the basis that several other technological products have a timeline of introduction, such as Timeline of Apple Inc. products, which has even fewer cited sources than Timeline of Google Street View. Second, the information is useful to people who are interested in Google Street View, such as myself; being that I do not have the chance to travel often and am studying urban planning, Street View is a valuable resource for me to compare and explore places around the world, and this page is the only reliable source of update notification that I have found for Google Street View. After all, Google does not have a page that announces when new places are released (at least that I have found), and the Google LatLong blog does not always update when a new country is introduced. I do agree that there should be more sources cited, especially since I suspect that the primary contributors to the article may be Google employees themselves, as the updates are always recorded in the article with great punctuality. I have already asked one such editor for his sources, since he was the one who contributed today's introduction of San Marino and more places in the Czech Republic [[1]]. In conclusion, while I agree that more sources should be cited, I disagree that the article should be deleted on the basis that there are other timeline articles out there and because it does have a purpose and users. If the article cannot stand alone by itself, I propose merging it as a section in the Google Street View article. TheAckademie (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep so oppose merge to Google Street View. This article was created after a discussion to reduce the dimensions of GSV article. I agree that some updates have not sources, but that does not mean the information is not correct. Some facts should be added^{[citation needed]} until there are more links.Eugεn S¡m¡on(14) ® 14:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 10:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Street View receives a vast amount of press (and several lawsuits and other investigations by various governments, which in turn received media coverage). This exists as a spin-off of the main article; Google Street View is an innovative and popular product which has, amongst other things, spurred significant discussion of privacy rights around the world, and therefore deserves detailed coverage in Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because fans of things like Google Street View don't understand the concept of an encyclopedia article and use WP for a venue for the most minute details of their interest. To fight them would be a total waste of time. To win the fight would require some serious changes in how WP works, and that might not be a good thing. Anyway the 99.99% of us who don't care about the timeline of Google Street View can ignore the article with no harm done to anyone. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of this article is sourceable due to the fact that it is so commonplace that whenever Streetview is introduced anywhere in the world, it gets reported at the very minimum in the news of that place, and usually around the world (e.g. "Google Street View introduced in _______"), including in English-language publications. This makes it so virtually all the information in this article can be verified from reliable sources outside of Google, enough to meet the GNG. If any citations are missing, it is more likely not due to a lack of existence, but due to WP:LINKROT and the increased difficulty in finding them as time passes. But plenty of them can still be found today in a Google News search. And original research is not a serious problem with this article. Merging it to the main article is not feasible per WP:TOOLONG. The main article needed to be broken up into many more because it had grown to be above 160K and was unmanageable, difficult to read, difficult to edit, and it took forever to load on older computers and on mobile devices. Sebwite (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is the easiest place where one can find out when new cities and countries are added to Google Street View. Google does not have a website that informs one when somewhere new had been added, therefore I believe it is necessary to keep this article. I have never seen an incorrect detail on this page and it has always been very useful. So it is my opinion that under no circumstance should this page be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.220.177 (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I frequently check this page and find it the most comprehensive source of this information on the internet. It's regularly updated and I don't see anything particularly unencyclopaedic about it. As for sources, surely Google Maps itself is a fair source? The dates may be harder to verify, but I think it would be a great shame to get rid of the article purely for this reason... LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Google Maps is a great source for the available cities themselves; one can easily go over to confirm the addition of a new location, even if dates are harder to find. But I'm just like you – I also check this page very frequently. TheAckademie (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2012 (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.