Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Google

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. Shimeru 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Google[edit]

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

This page is redundant to Template:Google Inc. and List of Google products. This also does not seem to be a suitable topic for an Outline (though any specific criteria have yet to be hammered out). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to just be a link page about Google that would just be on the Google page. Toontown59153 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NULL: I can't decide what my "vote" is... ~~There really is no set guidelines (like the notability guideline) for an outline, which means a different style of debate is in order.~~ Why do we have (redundant) outlines? Google is a perfectly notable topic, and Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Surmountable_problems states AFD is not for cleanup, so expand it or tag it or whatever. Perhaps you ought to start a discussion. —mono 23:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though I have never really agreed with the concept of outlines, I think the current "consensus" is that they are allowable, and this one doesn't seem too limited in scope. —fetch ·comms 23:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links could be move into a collapsible box on the Google Page, an entire page is unnecesary. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an alternative form of navigation. It is appropriate to have an article like this for every broad topic (or at least each popular broad topic) that warrants it by having a sufficient group of articles (where the line is I do not know--perhaps 30 to 50 articles). That other forms of navigation could do this alwso is not a factor--we can have as many as we like as long as people will maintain them. (Myself, this is the type of navigational aid that I think really does add value, beyond that in the templates, lists and categories.) DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but it might do best at a category if it already isn't. Allmightyduck (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google is certainly a notable topic and this provides a good form of navigation. I do however agree with Fridae'§Doom that a collapsable box on the Google page would be better. Andrewmc123 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Something like this is a useful navigational aid that would be worsened by translation into a list or category. I'd prefer to see it translate to a collapsable template (that could be included on all the relevant Google articles), which I think would be even a stronger navigational aid, but I would !vote keep even if that weren't an option. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (Weakened after my understanding was corrected by Quiddity below) --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Decker and Andrewmc: Did you see Template:Google Inc. as mentioned in my nom statement? -- Quiddity (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction, I don't know how I missed that in your nom. Embarassing. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quiddity, whose reasoning I'm going to repeat and expand upon. First off, the outline is awfully redundant to Template:Google Inc. (obviously). In addition, List of Google products does an excellent job of not only listing, but also describing Google's many products (while doing it with far more items than the outline lists). I kind of like the idea of outlines, but when the previously-mentioned template and the list of products exist, I see no reason to keep the outline which is not only redundant, but also seems to be less comprehensive (and as such less useful) than the other pages. Of course, the outline can be expanded to be extremely comprehensive (which is why using its lack of comprehension as a reason for deletion is not a good one by even my own standards), but even if it is fixed up, it would still be pretty redundant IMO, and as such is unneeded. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that AfD is not for cleanup. If you want to fix it up, just do it. —mono(how's my driving?) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know, I stated (or at least tried to) that it's not a valid reason for deletion at the end of my comment myself. My view on it is that it is simply repetitive, no matter if it is cleaned up and expanded to the full extent. But that's just my opinion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "repetitive" -- or "redundant" applies here. There are multiple ways to organize articles in WP. outlines are one of them, and there is no reason to delete them just because the other ways exist also. Categories, lists, outlines, templates--it may sound like too many, but as there is no consensus on which of the works best, and every likelihood each of them may work best for some particular purpose purposes. If people are willing to maintain it there is no reason to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to Keep. I still think they're a bit repetitive, but I've been convinced of their usefulness by reading the essay, but mostly by reading and going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. There already is Template:Google Inc. and Category:Google. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 32.174.87.106 [1] in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Just as there ought to be--all 3 are valid methods of guidance and organization. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OLWHY. SnottyWong ^confess 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. I am a supporter of the general purpose of these outlines and I do think this one in particular goes beyond the existing list, template, and category. That being said, we don't appear to have much criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of outlines so I would suggest that the practice on their deletion would get written down somewhere. Them From Space 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by any other name, an outline is a list. Its just organized a bit differently and there is ample precedent for them.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: really useful outline/list - just needs improving. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - would be sensible outline if someone could write some prose. I agree it doesn't serve much of a purpose at the moment (apart from as a weak navigational list), but there's room for improvement, and WP:NODEADLINE applies here. Claritas § 18:56, 13 July 2010 (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.