Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google APIs

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The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google APIs[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOTGUIDE. Unambiguous promotional material. All sources are primary. I cannot find any significant independent coverage discussing the APIs themselves; if there exists some controversy or coverage then notability could be met. If such a story does exist though I imagine it belongs on other google related articles. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to new sources discovered and causing confusion due to combined nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following page as it is also google software, a stub, also has only primary sources, and appears to have no significant independent coverage. I did find [1] but it is only routine news reporting of an update.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some things here: [2], [3], and [4] Conyo14 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 3 are good, 4 is arguably only significant coverage of the malware itself. I think WP:PRODUCT could apply here, specifically, "Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy." For example, it seems more logical to me personally to have the google maps API in source 2 covered in Google Maps, and the privacy API discussed by source 3 in Privacy concerns regarding Google, rather than grouping unrelated APIs in the same article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Most of the news sources are on the variety of APIs that Google offers, rather than the API itself. However, there are educational sources on the subject: [5] ISBN: 0-7821-4333-4 [6] ISBN: 978-1-84969-436-0. That might be something worthwhile? Conyo14 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the sources. 5 refers to the APIs collectively as "Google Web Services", perhaps we should have the article renamed to match that term? 6 seems to be about a separate set of APIs for visualisation, it only specifically refers to google web services once, but there does seem to be some overlap about web integration. Currently, 2, 3 and 5 are sufficient to establish notability in my opinion, and there are plenty more sources covering google web services, eg. [7], [8] which could be included also. If sources establishing notability for Google Web Designer are found among these sources they could easily be added in summary style too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but TNT I think this article serves better as an educational resource. In its current format, it reads as an advertisement. However, if it were written in an educational format based on the several books I found, then it would be a very useful article.
As for Google Web Designer, delete. There is nothing I found that indicates any particular usefulness towards WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, TNT and rename as per sources found by Conyo14, rename to Google Web Services. TNT is needed to clean up marketing language. (note to closers: I am the original nominator) Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. I'm also not sure why Google Web Designer was thrown into the same nomination when it is nothing similar to Google APIs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to nominate because I believed the articles did not meet WP:NPRODUCT, because I could not find sources with significant, independent coverage, so I thought AfD was the best forum for determining notability. I do appreciate the sources Conyo14 has found. I chose to nominate both articles together because the articles are both about closely related google software with only primary sources and both appear promotional. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding, if you see issues with my personal choices for AfD nominations please post on my talk page to discuss. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm finding the comments here confusing. Typically, in my experience, TNT means blow to smithereens, Delete, so I don't understand what "Keep but TNT" exactly means. An AFD closer is not in charge of editing an article under discussion so, specifically, what does TNT mean in your arguments? Also, there are two articles that have been bundled together. Some editors have specified different outcomes, which is what should be done, but not all. Also, the nominator, User:Darcyisverycute who initiated this discussion to Delete (which is what AFD is for), is now advocating Keep! If you have changed your stance this radically, it would be appropriate to withdraw or at least strike your nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Liz here, Darcy, you may want to just withdraw nomination. Cleanup of the article can commence. If you still feel strongly about Google Web Designer, put it in AfD as its own thing. Conyo14 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Liz and Conyo14, I will explain my thought process. What I meant by keep and TNT is that I can't see anything worth keeping in the article as-is (so it needs TNT to completely wipe it and restart with better quality sources), and the current title of the article doesn't seem like the right one, that it should be called 'google web services' instead. So one option is to delete this and make the correctly named article, but doing so would erase the article history, so it would be better to rename (ie. move) the article alongside TNT. Whether to say that at the AfD now that new sources have been found, or to withdraw the AfD and make a separate request at WP:RM, I was not sure. I thought it was better to post it here, but I can see I was not very clear about that intention.

With that being said, I am not sure if there is consensus to move the page to 'google web services' without opening a move request, but I will ~~close~~ withdraw the AfD nomination on your recommendations. Sorry for making a bit of a mess about this. I do not feel strongly about either article so I will not open a second nomination for google web designer, but I can see that grouping the nominations in this case has caused more problems than it's helped, as I didn't expect divergent responses. (edit: I will not close the nomination yet to avoid disrupting any potential replies) Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure Google Web Services are now called Google Cloud/Google Cloud Platform --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2023 (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.