Talk:Google Guys

Why a separate article?
Shouldn't this be merged to the individual articles where appropriate and turned into somethingh like a disam page? – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I created the article because I believe that most people know the two guys as "the Google Guys" rather than individuals. I think it's sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, especially considering the similarities between the two such as wealth, etc. that the media likes to draw between them a lot of the time. Also, if there wasn't this article, the information would probably have to be mirrored twice in each person's article. Gary King  ( talk ) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet it is already...I predict this a third copy of the information (No I havent checked). Do we need an article for "the guy who started Microsoft with Bill Gates" cos no one remembers his name either? I think we are reflecting lazy journalism and a neologism, I'd go to Google if Id forgotten their names.. Victuallers (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the term "Google Guys" is better left covered within the articles of the two individuals rather than having its own article. I also think it's better that the information from this article is duplicated rather than mirrored three times. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay disambiguated. I'll try my best to merge the previous information into the two individual articles.

I redirected this page back to the main Google article. This does not fall under the category of a disambiguation page because disambiguation pages are for topics that have an unclear, or more than one meaning (e.g. Conversion). Google Guys, as far as I can see, means only one thing, and seeing as it is just an informal reference to the two Google founders, there is no need to have an article for it. If you have any questions, I would suggest leaving it on Talk:Google. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To chime in, I gotta say that when I read this article, I wondered how much the subject deserved its own article. Other than the catchy moniker, it's really just a biographical snippet, telling how much they're worth and their accolades--stuff I'd expect to find in the bios. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pointless. It should be merged into the seperate article or at least merged into the google article. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be redirected to Google. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles like this are why no one will ever take Wikipedia seriously. --99.199.182.197 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

obsolete
Update after redirects to a section called obsolete, so I had to create this section. :(

A 2004 article is used to verify the claim that "Together with company CEO Schmidt, they now hold 27% of Google's outstanding shares, and 40.4% of the voting power.". It LOOKS outdated, and should be traced to a more recent source. If it isn't outdated, another source is necessary to explain why those numbers aren't subject to change. 128.59.179.248 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)