Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDrive (3rd nomination)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDrive[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
This is an article about a rumored future product which is only speculated to exist. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
An article with this name has been AFDed twice before, and both times, the result was delete. The reasons used then still apply now.
All of the cited sources are fundamentally deficient in at least one way.
- "GDrive Client Leaked" — You'll notice that the software in question is actually called "Platypus", and not "GDrive". The author makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that Platypus will be "GDrive". To me, that verges on failing to verify. Certainly, some speculative blog post is not a reliable source.
- "GDrive.com owned by Google" — Another blog full of speculation; not a reliable source. More importantly, it demonstrably fails verification:
  - http://www.gdrive.com self-identifies as "Web.com", not Google.
  - It is true that both gdrive.com and google.com are registered through MarkMonitor. That means nothing. MarkMonitor is a domain name registrar; any number of companies use them.
  - The actual registrants are different for the two domain names:
    - google.com is registered to "Google, Inc." (source)
    - gdrive.com is registered to "DNStination, Inc." (source)
- "GDrive is Here" is again not talking about GDrive, but the fact that Google is selling more storage space on their GMail and Picasa services.
Most of the pages which link to GDrive are related to the fact that it doesn't belong. AFDs, AFD notices, COI reports, spam reports, someone's to-do list, articles to be created, etc. The only real exception would be Platypus (disambiguation), which itself states GDrive is nothing more than rumor.
While there may be rumors about "GDrive":
- The rumors are not notable by Wikipedia standards, as far as I can tell
- There are no reliable sources discussing the rumors in any substantial way
- Any attempt by Wikipedians to gauge the pervasiveness of the rumors would be original research
Even if we could find a reliable source on the rumors, I don't think that would constitute enough information to write a proper article.
- Mention of it on the List of Google products page or similar might be warranted (if properly cited), but that's it.
When and if an actual, notable product called "GDrive" is announced/created, then the article should be created. Until and unless that happens, no.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this isn't an encyclopedic subject. Still.

—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per all the excellent reasons above. This AFD nomination is vastly superior to the article itself. Reyk _YO! 05:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is just not much more to say, all is said above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An order of Delete with a dash of Salt - More quality in the AFD than the article. And all the points are hit by the nom. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while this is a subject close to my own heart, it does not (yet) have a place in an encyclopaedic collection. Looking forward to seeing it re-appear, post release. samj (talk) 06:00, 1 August 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.