Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDrive (4th 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. and salt. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GDrive
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(The following bullet points are copy-and-paste from previous AFD. They still apply.) In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this isn't an encyclopedic subject. Still.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
 * Requesting salt. Prevent recreation of page, until such time as actual facts materialize.  Until then, going through this inevitable AfD every few months is an enormous waste of time.
 * An article with this name has been AFDed three times before, and all three times, the result was delete. The reasons used then still apply now.
 * This is an article about a rumored future product which is only speculated to exist. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
 * Verifiability. Reliable Sources.  No Original Research.  They exist for good reason.  Without them, Wikipedia is baseless; anyone can write anything.  This article fails miserably on all counts.
 * guardian.co.uk: Openly admits it is pure rumor. States Google declined comment.  Refers to TG Daily website but doesn't cite an article.  Mainly discussion of privacy concerns, not GDrive.
 * Searching TG Daily myself, the best I can find is Throw your hard drive away, Google's Gdrive arriving in 2009, which is entirely speculation. Somehow "www10" translates to "GDrive".  The closest this comes is a vague reference to a forum post about something called "Google Web Drive", which isn't even the same name, and still isn't reliable.
 * telegraph.co.uk: Says the same thing as The Guardian, almost word-for-word. Again, notes that Google denies/declines.
 * beussery.com: Blog post that is nothing more than a link to another blog post!
 * Said blog post. Examining a bit of JavaScript, some concludes GDrive is coming.  Sure, why not?  Except: (1) This is original research and (2) Cannot be verified, as the alleged code was later removed.  Please note that despite the name, this blog has absolutely no connection to Google, and is in no way official, and openly admits such in its subtitle.
 * Said blog post. Examining a bit of JavaScript, some concludes GDrive is coming.  Sure, why not?  Except: (1) This is original research and (2) Cannot be verified, as the alleged code was later removed.  Please note that despite the name, this blog has absolutely no connection to Google, and is in no way official, and openly admits such in its subtitle.
 * 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.

— DragonHawk (talk|hist) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its all guesswork, assumption, and unsupported rumour at the moment, which is not what Wikipedia is about. The subject of the article cannot be WP:Verified through the use of multiple WP:Reliable Sources at this point in time. Delete until such a time as there are multiple, reliable sources discussing this software as opposed to providing (admitted) rumour. Support any measures to prevent re-creation until such a time as the Verifiability policy can be met. -- saberwyn 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content, and salt per above. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt, not a crystal ball. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt since if this product will be released (and it's been rumored since 2006, if not earlier) the whole article will need to be rewritten anyway. No use publishing rumors beforehand. White 720 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.