Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Censorship


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Google Censorship
POV fork of History of Google. waffle iron talk 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I remember Time had an entire article devoted to this very topic. Good enough for Time = good enough for Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't read through the article completely, but it seems well-sourced and not OR. Some POV work could be done, but not enough to warrant deletion.  Keep. Adambiswanger1 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Google censorship is definitely an important and worthwhile topic. That it happens is a matter of record. I'm sure the article could be improved, but that's really no reason to delete it. -- Captain Disdain 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Compare the article to History of Google and you'll find this article is much shorter and fixated on Islam and right leaning sites. --waffle iron talk 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important topic, more likely to be searched for than "history of Google". Could do with broadening, but that's more likely to happen in a non-merged article. Espresso Addict 03:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * strong Keep Well sourced and documented article--CltFn 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, though probably should be moved to Google censorship. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. --Peta 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, good article, no POV. Max S em 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually the article just contains duplicated sections from History of Google.  I don't really see the point of hosting near-identical material in two separate articles. --Madchester 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep fascinating notable article &mdash;M e ts501 talk 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, way too much detail for an enecyclopedia. There should be a paragraph or two summarizing the topic in the main article. -- Kjkolb 07:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Probelms with the article are a reason for clean-up, not deletion. Ace of Sevens 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well referenced and factual. I don't understand how it can be interpreted as POV. Ydam 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Generalise. It's POV because there's no Yahoo Censorship or MSN Censorship, or even Baidu Censorship; singling out Google for something every search engine does is clearly biased.  However, a general article on Search Engine Censorship, discussing the censorship practices of other search engines as well as those of Google, would not be biased. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is an issue for cleanup or revision, not a wholesale deletion! Haeleth has a valid point but until then, there is no requirement for deletion and I fail to see how it even came to be brought up as such. -- Evanx  (tag?) 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reaks of POV; a future article on "Search engine censorship" would likely be focused on Google, since it is the most popular service of its kind today. The History of Google already provides sufficient information on the company's controversies.  --Madchester 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to History of Google or Search Engine Censorship. --William Pietri 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The practice is notable and well documented, so no issue there. The only issue I see is regarding merging into other articles, such as mentioned above by William Pietri, but I think Google's prominence and the wealth of sourced info here justify the independent article. As far as POV accusations, to make that claim one would have to argue that the censorship does not exist, and I think Google freely admits it. Overall the article seems fairly factual, IMO. Crum375 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - We're not here so that people can attack Google.. full of POV. -- 9  cds (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you name one specific POV you see in it? Crum375 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and list as the main article from History of Google --Ephilei
 * Keep The bigger a company, the more criticism it gets. That is another thing than a POV fork.--Donar Reiskoffer 11:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to optimise the material so it is unbiased. Then why don't we let people edit it to rid of the biasness instead of just deleting the article as a whole. NeoDeGenero 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a good and unbiased article that only needs a bit of cleaning up, NOT DELETING. Mrchickenn 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is not a POV fork in any sense, just a spinoff article. Very notable subject.  Deleuze 14:09, 16 June 2006 (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.