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

Google Street View in Latin America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ᛔandersnatch◂ 22:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good referencing and source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]