Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Street View coverage areas


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Street View coverage areas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Basically a repeat of List of Google Street View locations, which was deleted. After nominating for speedy delete, it was deleted, but the author, Sebwite, argues that this page is different than List of Google Street View locations. This article is still a list of Google Street View locations, described by state. WP:NOTDIRECTORY targets these specific types of articles, and this page should also be deleted. -- F lag F reak TALK 23:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory, its an encyclopedia. This page has no encyclopedic value, so we should get rid of it.--SJP (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as directory with no encyclopedic value. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a directory, but rather an article about how GSV has evolved in different regions. The "list" is only one chart that shows major cities in order to give an overview. Besides, coverage areas are referenced from plenty of valid sources, and I am still adding more to this day. Sebwite (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Then why don't you rename it "Development of Google Street View"? The current title has the same meaning as "List of Google Street View" locations, and the current article is still a list, descriptive or not. -- F lag F reak TALK 00:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, list is subject to change as Google adds coverage, and I am concerned that the image is tantamount to copyvio. List is generated by original research. Finally, it is profoundly uninteresting, as it seems Google has street views of every major metro area except Seattle. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 1.) Being subject for change does not mean it can't be included on Wikipedia. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it can be updated anytime. Saying something should not be included because it changes is grounds for exclusion of a lot of material, such as the records of every sports team, a political primary, etc. 2.) "Uninteresting" is only a matter of personal opinion. This is not every human being's view. 3.)GSV currently has a lot of areas not covered, not just Seattle. Baltimore-Washington still has zero coverage, seven U.S. states don't, and there is none outside the U.S. And there are still many places where not every street or suburb has coverage, and these are slowly being expanded. Part of the mission of this article is to describe this evolution. And I have added numerous sources, thereby making this information worthy of inclusion, whether in its own article or as a part of the GSV article. 4.) If you are concerned about the image being a copyvio, it should be discussed on the IfD board. This image was created by FlagFreak, the nom. Sebwite (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Main point; it is easier to describe what isn't covered in one sentence in the text of the main article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This information is already a section of the article Google Street View, so no merge is necessary; it's preferable that such a list be maintained there in the parent article, rather than here. Nothing is lost by deleting this particular list; nothing is gained by stubbing the main article. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect: There is some information in here that isn't in the Google Street View article, and it doesn't seem like a mere directory to me. However, the Google Street View article hasn't yet reached the point where it needs to be split.   Also, it certainly does need to be better referenced, to avoid seeming like original research.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have lotted quite a lot of references by now, and I plan to add some more. Sebwite (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. No merge is necessary, since the Google Street View article already lists the locations in a get-to-the-point style. -- F lag F reak TALK 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is not a recreation of List of Google Street View locations, but rather a subarticle of Google Street View in order to keep that page looking more orderly. I created it in keeping up with the Wikipedia tradition of splitting articles in this manner when an article gets to be too long and chaotic-looking. All the information that is on this page was previously on Google Street View, and if this page is deleted, it will reappear there, because it was there before. It is not a directory, but a description of the evolution of the service. Plenty of valid references are available on this information - I shall place them on the page in the coming days. As for the image, it was placed by FlagFreak (the nom), and if there is any concern about copyvio, this shall be discussed on the IfD board. Sebwite (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; I have never seen the point of this list in any of its forms. --NE2 09:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is essentially a list of streetview locations with some added information. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the main article is adequate. I don't even see the point of an up-to-date list of locations covered being appropriate for Wikipedia. We should describe the service yet leave intricate details to Google's website or a fan page. Rasadam (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2008 (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.