Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google services and tools

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep – ABCD 01:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Google services and tools
This article is just a re-hash of the information on http://labs.google.com/ and http://www.google.com/options/index.html It has no encyclopedic content, just a list of services from a busniess, which will change over time.
 * By User:Marc omorain, fixed by BrokenSegue


 * And...Keep. This article is a list of product made by a notable company. Instead of having an article on each one this list was made. Many of the products are significant and more information is given on this page than on google's, especially criticism and details. BrokenSegue 04:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Possibly copyvio. Radiant! 09:25, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that this text isn't a copyvio. BrokenSegue 15:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Having a collection of 30 of a company's logos on one page is definitely borderline copyvio if not blatant. --Alterego 16:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Google is central to how the Web works at this point, and their products are notable by association. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 15:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: I know Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising per se, but I think Google is well-known enough to warrant a page listing its products. --Andrew 22:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless of course this is a copyvio. In that case, delete (extremely). &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 02:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - too large to merge into Google. -Sean Curtin 03:21, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. One section of the article appeared to be a copyvio; I've excised that bit (can anyone find anything else that shouldn't be there?).  We have lists of other company's products, where those companies and products are very well known and highly notable.  (See List of IBM products, for example.) I think Google's products and services clear that bar. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, there is a big difference between that IBM page, which is simply a list, and this page on Google. Further, IBM is nearly one hundred years old, and some of the products they have produced, which you claim google "clears the bar", are notable for cataloguing the jews during the holocaust. No, I don't think Google is nearly as famous as IBM. --Alterego 16:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Zellin 04:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some listings really make me laugh. This is one. Keep, obviously. Dan100 22:15, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -Frazzydee|&#9997; 04:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The information on this page is too much to go on the [Google] page, and this information is important to understanding Google. - --mathwizxp 00:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Avnit 19:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) : There is more information in the page in question than there is on the google services page. I see no reason to delete this page.
 * 8th edit BrokenSegue 15:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - InnovationGuy 11:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC) : I see no reason to delete this page. From a research standpoint, it does offer a useful overview of Google's many products and services.  It's also useful for the neophyte, which I think should always be an important consideration in deleting a page, i.e., would someone new to the topic or to Wikipedia find this useful?
 * First edit BrokenSegue 15:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've referred to this article a few times before. I wouldn't object to it being merged into one of the other Google articles, although it seems long enough to stand on its own. Definitely should not be lost. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This article used to be part of other Google articles but was moved here to make them shorter. BrokenSegue 04:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "make them shorter" is an understatement. It was spawned
 * Delete: This article is fancruft and nothing else. I hereby cancel out all the keeps above and refer you to this page. /me wonders "can I really do that?" guess so! --Alterego 16:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary detail;  smacks of fancruft.  Edeans 18:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hereby cancel out Alterego. Nelson Ricardo 01:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not happy with the current layout, but this article looks informative and useful to me. It should be brought to a higher standard though, I especially dislike the constant mix with external links. -Nikai 12:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A bad article does not have to be deleted. -- Taku 15:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Look, this article is just fancruft plain and simple. It is overly large and the topic of Google on Wikipedia is overly divided and longwinded. Take a look at the Yahoo article, and notice that Yahoo is a) twice as large as google b) older than google c) has a lot more services than Google. If there weren't so many zealots around here worshipping Google we wouldn't have this problem. And this is where groupthink kicks in; what do you do when everyone in the vote is biased towards worshipping the same thing? How about some objectivity around here. It's obvious the article is just crap and possibly violating Google's rights by putting 30 of their corporate logos on a single page. --Alterego 16:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * In my understanding, I wouldn't consider this "fancruft", even if it were too detailed. But I do not believe that the comparison to Yahoo is relevant&mdash;if one feels that Yahoo has more services and is more notable, one is certainly free to expand that article, but I don't interpret such arguments to mean that the information on Google should be reduced. You are right in that most of the information in the article could probably be found by following your link, but then again all the information in Wikipedia should be able to be found elsewhere. Our job is to collect it and present it in an easily-understood format, from an outsider's view. For instance, the page you cite does not actually contain any information on the services; and even when I tried following the links on that page I still did not reach pages that were informative about the nature of the service. Furthermore, I would prefer reading about something on Wikipedia, where for instance Gmail's potential privacy concerns may be covered in a way a company's self-description wouldn't. As for what to do if everyone else is biased except you&mdash;you consider that perhaps you are the one who is biased. Perhaps not ("If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the universe"), but I don't think groupthink as I understand it really applies here, at least not until the last few votes. Certainly facing 5 or 6 keeps and no deletes might give someone pause, but it trend would already be clear (unlike in real-time discussions where opinions are shaped concurrently). In any case, it's good to have a difference of opinions to keep ourselves in check. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 22:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) By the way, that quote was not meant to be an insult (and it turned out that there was something wrong with the universe) &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.