Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverage 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 noted by others, this is a timeline, not a directory, and as such does not fall under WP:NOTIINFO. It has also been noted that this doesn't fall under WP:SYNTH, either, since all the info in the article is only confirmed facts and not interpretations. See also this related AfD. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Google Street View[edit]

(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]

Pace also, but all that 'proves' is that if you put something on the internet, someone will read it. No quality need be imputed. _Muffled ^Pocketed

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]
- There is something to say both for keep and delete. It is the timeline of introductions that makes the article an indiscriminate list of every human settlement existing on earth. But the section before that, about Google Street View itself, are indeed worth keeping. The Banner talk 10:51, 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]

Keep per Nick-D. Agree that this is not a synthesis, as the article primarily combines confirmed facts without drawing unsupported conclusions from those facts. If there are specific sentences in the article in violation of WP:SYNTH, point them out or delete them through the normal editorial process. Altamel (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about the countries and territories available on Google Street View. Diretor Adobe (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a directory,but it's a timeline, and that's not forbidden by Wikipedia. There are timelines everywhere. Also people need to know availables countries and territories in Google Street View, included future. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per Nick-D, this article is the result of a hard work by the people that are following this great service every day since it started, and it was created just for reducing the size of Google Street View article. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual information, well defined scope, cleanly organized, information not available elsewhere, highly used and referenced based on statistics. Svltr (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For same reasons above. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep I check this page almost daily...it's the only source I know with very specific updates on new locations for Google Street View. AnimAlu (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasons above. Personally, I second AnimAlu's comment quite ardently too.--T1980 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is not the only timeline article on Wikipedia, and is on par with timelines for other technological products and services, such as Timeline of Apple Inc. products. I agree with AnimAlu and T1980 as well, and as an urban planning researcher, I'll admit that I do check this page daily. I would also like to reiterate Pristino's point that four years ago we already had this discussion and the consensus was to keep the page. The one rule which I'd like to propose for the page (and which I imagine will keep it more controlled, less sprawling, and less susceptible to being proposed for deletion) is to list only updates done by Google itself. Street View accepts a lot of user-submitted 360 images, so the map and list would be more representative of Google's output if limited to just those updates. TheAckademie (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a timeline, not a directory, so that policy doesn't count. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like the overall coverage and specific additions have gotten enough coverage for a claim to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 1 August 2016 (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.