Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Street View in Latin America


 * 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. Sources proove notability (non-admin closure) — Hue  Sat  Lum  15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Google Street View in Latin America

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I see no reason to assume this is a valid article on a notable topic. It is nothing but a list of places where GSV is available--mostly unverified, and the existing references are not to reliable sources. I don't dispute the information given in the article, but the fact that no reliable sources appear to comment on this indicates it's not worthwhile noticing. There's not a lot of guidance on the notability of lists, but one sentence in WP:LISTN offers a bit of advice: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I don't see such evidence. Moreover, if anyone wishes to know whether GSV is available in a certain area with a certain definition, there's a much better way, error-proof, and always up-to-date: go to Googe Maps and click on the yellow man or whatever it is. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as ephemera. As the nom says, the way to find this out is to ask Google, not us. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe a couple of sentences and refs that aren't already in the main Google Street View article could be kept, but the tables that make up most of this article are too general a compilation of data and not encyclopedic content. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is not only a list. It also contains a series of paragraphs full of sourced information about the project in quite a large area of the world, along with its history there. Presently, Street View can only be seen in two countries in Latin America, but Google has either planned it or is making it in several others, and that is sourced. Yes, most of the info in the charts comes straight from the primary source, but the "ask Google" rationale for deletion does not explain the many media-related sources verifying information outside of the chart. Sebwite (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs and their citations are the same as the information about Mexico and Brazil in the main Google Street View article, with the exception of a handful of sentences. Those sentences can be added to the main article.  If you want to document stuff like these tables, maybe it would work in a Wikibook of some sort, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedic article on a notable topic and strays too far into our policy about what Wikipedia is not. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 20:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These sentences that you are talking about are not a "handful." They are actually quite numerous, with 14 inline citations and counting to go along with them. There is no minimum size to qualify something for an article, and even without the charts, this would still exceed a stub. These tables are a bonus for the article, and are included within Wikipedia guidelines, but they are not what is making the article. You might indeed find some of the exact information in other Wikipedia articles, but sometimes, there is good reason for that. Wikipedia is supposed to be an easy place to find information. Also, WP: NOT is not a policy/guideline in itself, but a collection of more specific guidelines. Sebwite (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I pasted the "Latin America" section of the main article into this one and did a diff. The first paragraphs about Brazil and Mexico are identical to what's in the main article with the exception of some formatting changes in the reference templates.  I count ten sentences that are unique to this article.  One handful, two handfuls, it doesn't really matter.  WP:TOOLITTLE applies to a topic that qualifies for its own article under Wikipedia notability rules - stubs are just fine in that case - but as the AfD nominator notes this article doesn't meet the requirements.  The article and blog posts referenced do not discuss "Google Street View in Latin America" as a separate topic from Google Street View.  (And in fact most don't seem to mention that at all.)  Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to in WP:UNENCYC there because I don't see that phrase anywhere in that page, but it says right at the top of WP:NOT, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 22:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article contains well-sourced text. Already, it is possible to found lots of sources on Street View for any country that has it. You may not find sources under the name "Latin America," but you will found sources for the two countries online already, Mexico and Brazil, and the ones that will be in the future, Argentina and Chile.Linda Olive (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment ‣ I am just noticing that this is one of a set of articles created over the last year or so that are chronicling the roll-out of Google Street View services to different geographic areas and collecting news stories related to Google Street View in those areas. This seems completely unencyclopedic to me: we do not have geographic articles like this that compile data on the roll-out of, say, electrical services or water services or other entire service industries, much less play-by-play roll-out of a single company's services.  This belongs on Wikibooks or some other project where synthesis and large-scale data compilation is within scope.  But, the discussion may require a conversation broader than a single AfD. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is untrue that we do not have separate articles on stuff in different countries or continents. If you have read enough Wikipedia articles, you will find quite a large number of subjects that have their own country-specific or continent-specific articles, as they have substantial differences in different parts of the world. It is actually within Wikipedia's guidelines to write articles on topics at a global point of view, and many articles have been tagged because they fail to meet that requirement.


 * Those who contributed to the main article Google Street View did a good job early on of writing it at an international point-of-view. But article size became an issue. The article had reached lengths above 160K and became quite chaotic. It was slow to load, and impossible to load on old computers or those with weak connections. It was difficult to edit, all while it needed daily edits. It was difficult to navigate. It was time to do something. Splitting it based on geography seemed the most logical thing to do. Sebwite (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that there aren't any articles broken down geographically and I think you knew that. There are, for example, articles dealing with a particular industry in a region or country - the various companies, though usually just the major companies, the overall history of the industry concerned, the interaction with government regulation, the notable persons in the industry, the educational and research institutions and how they're involved in the industry, etc. - all in one article.  What we do not have are articles that are play-by-play chronologies of how one service, from one company, in one part of the world, is rolled out.  As I said above we don't even have that kind of giant times-and-places spreadsheet for an entire industry like electrical power distribution.  Massive non-narrative data compilation like this does not belong in an encyclopedia at all, not even in the main article - the reason why you were having problems with browser load time is because you were trying to do this at all in the first place.  A massive browser-crippling list of every retail location (or even every city and town) where you can buy Coca-Cola through official distribution channels, and what dates that became possible on, would not be appropriate for Wikipedia either.  It's great that you guys are doing all this meticulous research, I respect that, but it belongs on its own database-driven web site or maybe some kind of special reference-type or directory-type Wikibook, which could be linked to from the Wikipedia article about Google Street View. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 05:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KeepThere are enough sources to make this notable. The sources might mention the names of some countries, but Latin America is the official name for that region of the world. Dew Kane (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SUBARTICLE. The main Google Street View article apparently was very long at one time, and it is necessary to have separate articles to make information easier to find and to not confuse readers. Stedrick (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still very long, because it still contains a lot of nerdy detail which really isn't appropriate. We do not need to report every stupid little detail about Street View's coverage, especially since it changes constantly. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it civil—there's no reason to call this information stupid or nerdy and it might be appropriate for some sort of Wikibooks specialized reference work—but yes, the only reason the main article was getting too long was because it had this inappropriate-for-Wikipedia content in it chronicling the town-by-town roll-out of one particular service from one particular company. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, good referencing and source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tow   talk  22:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete along with the rest of the "Google Street View in" articles. I think "inappropriate-for-Wikipedia content in it chronicling the town-by-town roll-out of one particular service from one particular company" sums up the issue well. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is someone's opinion. But it is not policy/guideline. The "keeps" throughout this discussion have mostly cited policies and guidelines while the deletes have pretty much said nothing more than it should be deleted or that it is ”unencyclopedic.” Sebwite (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As we established above, WP:NOT is a policy. The specific part of it my argument is referring to is WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a directory; sorry if that wasn't clear.  In the same way that "an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings," neither should it contain a spreadsheet of times and locations detailing the town-by-town roll-out of one particular service from that one company.  "Unencyclopedic" isn't just a word I'm using for effect, this actually is not the kind of information that you find in an encyclopedia. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is not a single policy in itself but a collection of policies. If you look at the WP:NOTDIR section of this page, the only guideline there that may possibly be applicable is #8, but that is only a guideline against a total directory. It is not against a listing meant to give some idea (e.g. major cities). It may make sense to pare down the list, which has been discussed before. At the same time, it is hard to control numerous editors, many of who are IPs, adding cities to the list, though that is not a reason for deletion. If you made the list shorter, it may be a shorter article, but being a short article or even a stub is not a reason for deletion either. Sizes of articles can always change due to a variety of factors, and are never a reason to delete. The list of cities is not the primary purpose of this article either. Sebwite (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So in your objection above you actually meant to say that the argument in question is based on a collection of policies, rather than an individual policy? This is getting into the realm of wikilawyering, as is making up distinctions between a list of patents being a "total directory" while a directory of the places and dates where one service from one company is available is somehow in scope for an encyclopedia.  If the whole reason that the article was split off in the first place was because the original article was too long rather than because this is a topic that is independently discussed in any reliable sources, it's gaming the system to split it because it was bulked up with this sort of non-narrative compiled data content and then insist that the new article must remain as at least a stub.  If IP editors are adding directory content to an article then you should remove the content or move it to an appropriate project, not use it as an excuse to split off a new article with a couple of exactly duplicated paragraphs and trivia about dead bodies being caught in Street View images. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 07:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There has already been plenty of discussion to include lists of some of the cities included in chart fashion. While the discussion has leaned mostly toward including only those sourceable by an outside source saying there is Google Street View in a particular city or town (which there are many such articles), there is nothing stopping the numerous editors, many of which are IPs, from inserting additional places. Nevertheless, that is not a reason or delete. Sebwite (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PRODUCT. It says "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." That is why this is a separate article. These are a series of articles about a service provided by a company, one that receives a lot of diverse news coverage all over the world, documenting every place where it is. Several users above have explained that the parent article was so long that it was necessary to split it into many smaller articles. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, let's note the subsequent paragraphs of WP:PRODUCT:"When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely. Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion."And we aren't actually talking about a narrative discussion or prose about the topic here, we're talking about compiled data tables. I am still curious what the "Keep" !voters would say about pages and pages of tables of locations and dates concerning the availability of Coca-Cola, especially considering that "Coca-Cola in Latin America" gets dozens of Google News and Google Books hits, where "Google Street View in Latin America" gets none.  There's probably enough information in collectibles and antiques guides to break it down by size and type of bottle and can and to have articles and tables for other types of collectibles and Coke products, especially if we cut and pasted some duplicate paragraphs from the main article in as well, but doing so would not seem to be exercising editorial judgment. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you said here about stubs with no possibility of expansion is not applicable here. This article definitely has expansion coming. Already, Google has Chile on its site, so a third country is surely coming at the very minimum. There have also been unofficial announcements or media reports of several others. Even if quite a lot of information is taken out of this article the way things are today, and it is shortened to just a few paragraphs, it'll inevitably grow to be several pages of sourced information within that period of time. Normally, once a country is on Google's site, it comes public within several months. The unofficial announcements can take up to 2-3 years.
 * As for the issue for there being a lack of GHits, as several others have mentioned, you may not find them by searching the exact title of this article. Other sites do not function the same way Wikipedia does. But if you search "Google Street View"+"[country]," you will find hits for that country. If putting them together like this is such a problem, it is no different from having an article titled "______ in the United States" where the article focuses on that subject individually in several states, and the sources cover it that way. Sebwite (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that these tables can be expanded because Google will continue rolling out the service, and that there will probably be more trivia about things like images of dead bodies showing up in Street View captures, I just don't think that this is encyclopedic content that should appear on Wikipedia; I think it should appear in some other project or its own database-driven web site, as I said above. I would oppose an article devoted to compiled data tables about the progress of rolling out one particular product from one particular company in one U.S. state or even a group of states too. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Google StreetView has attracted substantial media attention in every market in which it is available, including Latin America.--Billhpike (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And when it's available in pretty much every market, then what? Meanwhile, I would need to actually try StreetView in each location to confident that the information is accurate about where it hasn't been introduced yet. That's why I oppose it as ephemera: shortly I expect that the notable information is going to be where it isn't available yet, and that information will have a short lifespan as they continue to expand their coverage. Even pro-forma reliable sources aren't really reliable except perhaps in the very short term, because Google is working hard to make their statements out-of-date. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the future. That can be discussed then. If it gets to the point that every square inch of planet earth is covered by GSV, it can be discussed then whether or not it is worth having a list. But for now, it is found in some places and not others. Plus there is an order to how it has been released, and there are individualities to each location and release. Sebwite (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (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.