Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMail Drive


 * 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. Wizardman 18:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GMail Drive

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable GMail hack. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by random IP with not of "rm PROD - lots of ghits, several gnews hits" however, an actual check shows none except for two non-English ones that looks like blogs. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 08:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, ZDNet, reviewed by CNet, TechCrunch coverage, LifeHacker, engadget --Cyber cobra (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per CyberCobra. Joe Chill (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable to me.--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks notable to me...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, although the how-to sections may need to be trimmed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've actually used this product (though it was years ago) on the basis of an online review, CNet IIRC. Looks like someone else linked the review above.  Sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. --ShadowRanger (talk 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This strongly illustrates the problematic nature of the concept of "notability", which is not Wikipedia policy. Of course if someone refers to "GMail drive" you would want to go to Wikipedia precisely because it can provide verifiable and neutral information.  The old and long-forgotten principle of mergism best exemplifies the solution to concerns about "notability".  The principle of opportunistic use of public storage is an old and well established one.  Ceefax coopted the spare scan lines broadcast while the television tube reset the scan beam to the top of the screen.  Some of the earliest computer memories--Williams tubes--exploited the memory effect of the long-persistence phosphor surface of cathode ray tubes originally developed for wartime radar screens.  Steganography uses the informational redundancy in picture files to store information (with the purpose of concealment).  And here we have a well documented example of such co-option for the purpose of information storage.  TS 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joe Chill. Upon first glance at the article my reaction was to suggest deletion (there is no solid third party referencing there) but the ZDnet Asia reprint and other sources look good -- they just need to be added to the body of the article.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 19 November 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.