Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google's hoaxes (2nd 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The result was   Withdrawn so I can get my eyes checked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Google's hoaxes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fancruft, trivia, no sources besides from Google itself. Last AFD was in 2006 with WP:ILIKEIT and "too big to merge back" as only arguments. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The idea that Google could do something like this and escape notice is absurd. When one looks for sources, they are immediately apparent, such as this.  WP:BEFORE seems not to have been followed and so the nomination is therefore frivolous/vexatious. Warden (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. I did do a source sweep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say a word about the nominator. But do please tell us about your source sweep.  When I google on the article title, it reports about 17 million hits.  If quotation marks are used to search on the precise phrase of the title then it's about 22,000, which is still quite a lot.  How is it that you claim to have found nothing?  Warden (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first page I looked at had only primary sources or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * SNOW Keep If you had taken the time to look over the article itself, you would have found these already cited in the article:
 * Review by Huff Post
 * Review by The Register
 * Review of hoaxes by MacWorld
 * Review of hoax by CNet
 * Review of hoaxes by PCWorld
 * Review by Mashable
 * Reviews by a French Internet consulting website.
 * I advise you to check the current references more carefully before you nominate in the future. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 00:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So add the damn things. Don't expect them to add themselves, or I guarantee some other idiot will nominate it again and we'll just start the infinite "keep but source" loop. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They've been in the article even before you nominated. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 00:59, 1 July 2011 (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.