Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 3D locations in Google Earth


 * 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

List of 3D locations in Google Earth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This could be an infinite list. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Not infinite, but large enough to be indistinguishable from infinite. LaMona (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The question of deletion was already discussed on the Google Earth talk page, where the consensus was that the list should be kept, but moved to this separate page. Guidelines were developed for compiling the list so that it does not become unmanageably large; closer adherence to these guidelines by editors should help mitigate the size of the list. If it continues to grow too large, further guidelines can be discussed on this article's Talk page, but so far no concerns have been raised there. ESRoads (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read these guidelines and thes strongly smell original research, especially what concerns identification and naming of these areas. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that talk page has many arguments against keeping the list at all, and more than one was concerns about the size. I see the ideas about defining contiguous areas, but I'm still in doubt of the value of such a list in Wikipedia since one can get it directly from Google. Basically, I don't see the "value added" of having it on Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were arguments for deleting the list—on the Google Earth talk page, not here—just as there were several for keeping it; I made some arguments there regarding the value of the list. More to the point, though, is that the arguments were made and a decision reached, which was to keep the list but split it off onto its own page. Had the decision been reached to delete it altogether, it would have been deleted at that time, and I don't believe it's necessary or productive to repeat the discussion here.
 * In particular, WP's AfD policy discourages deletion of very new articles that haven't yet had a chance to undergo editing and improvement. One way I suggest this topic can be improved upon is to make it a comparison of the 3D technology between various platforms, such as Apple Maps and the Here/Nokia/Ovi lineage along with Google Earth, since the development and deployment of this technology has played a notable part in the advancement of web mapping platforms from all three companies. While I believe the topic deserves better encyclopedic coverage on WP in general, in the absence of that a comparison listing here would prove quite illustrative.
 * At the moment, the sole argument in favor of deletion has to do with the article's size, which I agree is formidable. However, it's worth considering that in some regions, the number of entries is at least as likely to decrease as it is to increase; as larger areas are covered by the imagery, separate contiguous areas will grow and merge in single larger ones—this even happened several times as the listing was being compiled—and thus there will be fewer entries needed under that heading. Obviously the list will never become infinite, so there's no need to give weight to that objection, but if the list's size is a concern, we can certainly re-evaluate the criteria for inclusion or the formatting, so that the article can be edited and improved. ESRoads (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong forum  has made it clear that AfD is the wrong forum for this discussion.  Further discussion and a possible RfC belong on the talk page of one of the articles.  See WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Google Earth talk page has limited visibility. This is a correct venue. You have to prove the encyclopedic utility of this list to a broader audience. there are several types of legal lists in wikipedia. Which is this one? There are multitudes of mapping software with geotagging capability. In is not for wikipedia to do their job of cataloguing their detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it your position that there is nothing to merge back? Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If anybody convincingly explains the encyclopedic utility of this list, its verifiability, and non-OR, I may even change my vote. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a sincere question. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And it was a sincere answer. I am not a hardcore deletionist. At the moment I sincerely see its utility on par with List of crossroads in Washington DC. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've stated below, the timelines of the source material and of this page will corroborate that this page is not OR—there are even posts there describing the process being used to compile the database. If the predecessor list from the main page contained OR, it has been discarded as that content wasn't used in compiling this one. I'm not sure what about the page guidelines continue to suggest OR; the identities of the areas are derived from the source material and the entry names are determined by the editing process.
 * I'm not aware of any verifiability concerns, but the veracity of the information on this page is easily confirmed. As for notability and utility, per WP:ATD these should be addressed by improving the article or perhaps through WP:ATD-M and so are not grounds for deletion. ESRoads (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete original unreferenced hobby of single-purpose account ESRoads. Two of handful references are to blogs, and one blog even says "So, we decided to create a KML file combining all the locations from the Wikipedia page, and the list from Google, and a couple of extras that aren’t in either list.". ROTFL! - üser:Altenmann >t 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The KML file has been actively researched and expanded on during the time this list was deleted from the Google Earth page; if you correlate the dates from the submissions there versus the timeline of this page and its predecessor on the main page, you will find that the OR is now coming from that third-party source, not the other way around. Also go back and look at the history of the list; it was not only created, but deleted from the main page before I was ever involved. I only became involved when the question of deletion made it to the talk page, and the only contributions I made to this topic were in response to a call to create the new page that was agreed upon by consensus there. ESRoads (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTESAL. This list isn't discussed by independent reliable sources, nor is there any sort of significant coverage of the topic. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2016 (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.