Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google and 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 was Speedy Keep (nominator withdrew, non-admin closure). Andyjsmith (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Google and censorship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Currently we have 3 articles:


 * Google and censorship
 * Censorship of Google Search
 * Censorship by Google

Googly and Censorship is only 50 words and just links to those 2 pages, however, Censorship of Google is only a redirect to Censorship by google. so it presents the illusion of a choice, when really boath links lead to the same article. This is an example on why I typically discourage putting prepositions in article titles. had we gone with Google Censorship. it would have avoided this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's a dab page. We don't normally delete these. It's not a great dab page but it does the job - it's the sort of thing you might come across in an online search and is of some value. All dab pages are short and consist of links elsewhere so I fail to see why this is a valid criticism. There are probably quite a few related articles that could be linked here. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, Two links diverged in a wiki but not really since one was just a redirect to the other link so it didn't really matter at all. I deleted the pointless article And that has made all the difference. This is no Frostian deliemma , this lie about a choice that isn't there doesn't serve the end user. if you can argue that a user will get to this page and be glad for the bait and switch I'd be interested to hear that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The claim that this article "has search engine value" has no base at all. I Googled "Censorship and Google Wikipedia" on Google, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo and all 4 search engines brought up Censorship by Google not a single one had Censorship and Google in the first page of results. this is a poor Dab and we can do better, our users deserve better. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - AfD isn't even close to being properly formed. Nominator has a well-documented axe that they keep grinding. Nomination statement is bogus as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke offt here) 23:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So well documented you can't even identify the axe or provide a single shred of evidence? I know your unsupported accusation that I have "an axe to grind" is made in good faith. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - we're talking to ourselves here. This AfD isn't properly formed and can't reach a valid conclusion. Nominator should fix it or withdraw. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I see that it's now listed. Still badly formatted but it will do. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, as nominator, you shouldn't comment with the word 'delete' at the beginning later in the discussion, your belief that it should be deleted is already noted, and added another delete in bold gives the impression of someone else agreeing with you. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Censorship by Google, if people are specifically interested in China, then there is a clear heading at the top they can click on. At the moment, a dab with two entries going to the same page, one to the page itself and one to a subsection. Not convinced it's useful, a direct link is more useful to a reader. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect I agree that a redirect is a good idea as well, I believe in approval voting, everyone can vote only once, but you can vote for more than one thing. a redirect or a deletion would improve the end user experience with this content while staying true to wikipedia standards. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot !vote in your own AfD, especially not twice and for two different outcomes. Either explicitly change the nomination or withdraw it entirely. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly I can vote in my own AFD because Wikipedia is better off from it, secondly I have not voted twice I've only voted once for 2 different outcomes. Let me introduce you to approval voting andy, let's imagine for a moment that we're driving and I ask . where would you like to eat. and you say "I'm down for either restaurant A or restaurant B ( I don't know the names of any English restaurants)" I would say " alright I vote for place A or Place C" and we would go to place A since we have both voted once and place A has the most votes. Voting once for 2 things is not the same as Voting twice for 2 things. There's a great article on it Approval voting, you should check it out before you lie about someone voting twice. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: What on Earth is the nominator talking about? He says that this article links to Censorship of Google which "is only a redirect to Censorship by google". Well, firstly it doesn't link to Censorship of Google, and secondly that article doesn't even exist let alone redirect to Censorship by Google. In fact the article links to Censorship by Google and Internet censorship in China, two completely distinct articles. Lukeno94 called the nomination "bogus" and I agree - at best the nomination is completely misleading and is based on a huge error. The nominator should withdraw and, if he wishes, submit a new AfD that accurately represents the article in question. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not Censorship of google, it's Censorship of Google Search, I forgot to add the word "search" on it by mistake. Censorship of Google Search = redirect. at BEST Censorship and Google could also be a redirect. but I don't really see the need it for that. how many people possible type into Wikipedia search Censorship of Google Search I doubt hardly any. they all Google their news about google and end up there. The differences between us andy is that I care about the user, and you care about the editor. None of your posts talk about "this is what's best for the user" your posts talk about "the editor forgot to add a word so lets count that against him, user be dammed" So I'm going to ask you directly. on a scale of 1 to 10 how high of an experience do you think users who get here have. and how high do you think they deserve? you'll want to make this about me I'm sure, but try for once to edit for the users not for yourself. I have good faith in you, you're just misguided and have had a lot of tantrums since your 3rd time failing to get me banned. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The dab article that is the subject of this AfD did not link to Censorship of Google Search either, until you edited it just now. That's a deliberate attempt to mislead this debate. Andyjsmith (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is called "Censorship of Google Search" and you tell me that that article doesn't belong in the article "Google and Censorship". if those 2 articles can't link to each other I don't know any two articles that possibly can. If putting "Censorship of Google Search" into "Censorship and Google" makes no sense. provide me 3 articles you think "Censorship of Google Search" belongs in. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is from Wikipedia naming manual of style "Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism"; however, "Media's coupling of Islam and terrorism" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." here we are saying Google and Censorship, When a better name would be Google Censorship so that the contents of all 3 articles could easily fit there. instead of having 3 articles titled with problematic prepositions and conjunctions. this article is a redirect to a page that is essentially a redirect, since China censorship is not ambiguous with Censorship BY GOOGLE, If you want to claim this is a disambiguous article what is the ambiguity you're clearing up? Censorship By and of Google COULD be disambiguous but you are saying that Chineese censorship and Google censorship are ambiguous which they aren't they are clearly different topics and not ambiguous at all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Question what ambiguity does this article address? the ambiguity between censorship by Google and censorship by the Chinese government? I don't think that's very ambiguous at all. Someone who wants to keep this article please clarify the ambiguity that is seen here. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Censorship by Google. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Update. I've created the previously non-existent article Censorship of Google and put proper content into it - only a stub at this stage. I've changed the redirection of Censorship of Google Search to point there rather than to Censorship by Google, which is a completely different thing. I've fixed the Google and censorship article that's at AfD so the second point, censorship of Google, now actually provides a link to somewhere meaningful (the new stub), in order to provide a clear disambiguation of the different meanings of "Google and censorship". You should also note that Google censorship, which is undoubtedly a realistic search term, redirects to Google and censorship. So that's pretty much a full house for anyone who is interested in subjects that contain the keywords "Google" and "censorship": a dab page, a full article on the "by" meaning and a stub for the "of" meaning. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * redact proposal based on the work by user andy, the article is inline with a good dab article. I don't know how to withdraw the proposal but I do let it be known. Thanks andy for the good work new feel makes a lot more sense Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2015 (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.