Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google memo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.159.83.14 (talk) at 21:17, 9 August 2017 (Let's please recognize the community's limits when it comes to impartiality.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Google memo

Google memo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopedic. No any perceived lasting effects in culture, politics, or google itself. A clean-cut case of political WP:RECENTISM. Multiple sources do exist, but that's all just a scandal around a nonnotable person's musings. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator and Volunteer Merek. There is coverage in RS, and this could turn out to be of lasting significance, but it's way too early to make that assumption. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this controversy is expanding more and more and I think before rushing to nominate this for deletion, we should leave it for at least a week to see how far it goes. In case it dies out qickly, merge and redirect to the appropriate section in Google. In case it has lasting consequences, I'd say it should stay. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: It's still a developing story; it could be a flash in the pan, or it could have a lasting effect. For the time being we have a half-way decent article on the subject which doesn't scream "delete me", so I don't see the current need to merge or delete. FallingGravity 01:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no merge. Article Google memo is long enough to be an independent article. If merged into another article (e.g., Google#Criticism_and_controversy or Google#Corporate_affairs_and_culture or Criticism of Google, etc.), then it will make the content about this memo disproportionately long in that article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This AfD is a waste of time. The topic had enough source coverage in its first three days (10+ articles across multiple reliable, secondary source publications with multiple perspectives of analysis) to be independently notable from the company. Perhaps a merge discussion would have been within reason, but there's no way to look at that sourcing and say that sources don't cover it. Recentism? It already has a legacy. Try:
    Wingfield, Nick (August 8, 2017). "The Culture Wars Have Come to Silicon Valley". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
    Wakabayashi, Daisuke (August 8, 2017). "Contentious Memo Strikes Nerve Inside Google and Out". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
    I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to significant coverage and discussion from nearly every major news source (NYT, Fortune, etc.). --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Anthony Ivanoff - this story is culturally significant. We dont want to be accused of shutting down debate.Keith Johnston (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the vast number of sources covering this story (check Google News) demonstrate's the memo's significance. It should not be merged to the Google article because there has been significant discussion and analysis, both pro and con, about the memo, both from Google officially and from reliable sources, such as a professor whose work was cited in the memo. With time, I believe more of this discussion can be mentioned in the article in a way that conforms to our guidelines and policies, but a subsection in the Google article would be necessarily very short in order to not give WP:UNDUE weight to one employee's criticisms of the company, and a memo the distribution of which is (at this point) a relatively minor event in the history of Google. The memo advances an argument that goes much, much bigger than just Google, and argues against strategies for increasing diversity that are mostly not unique to Google. Hence, if it were to be merged anywhere it would be more appropriate to merge it to Women in computing (but I am definitely not recommending that either!) than to Google.--greenrd (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here's a fun fact. We don't even have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto. And that one was a big deal since, you know, he threatened to blow shit up until it was published in a major newspaper. But somehow it's absolutely essential that we must have an article on this dinky little thing? Come on people, some perspective please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Unabomber manifesto is included under the article on the Unabomber, thus making it an integral part of the same subject. You couldn't tell the story of the Unabomber without the Manifesto. You can tell the story of Google without this memo - which is looking to be more of a Silicon Valley cultural discussion. It might not shake out that way, but it's way too big for a merge already.--A1Qicks (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thoroughly discussed even in the central newspapers here in the Czech Republic (e.g. http://byznys.ihned.cz/c1-65839250-zeny-se-pro-praci-v-it-nehodi-napsal-zamestnanec-googlu-firma-ho-vyhodila) - it looks like a cause of worldwide importance.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ample evidence of independent notability. Kleuske (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep American topics about gender typically generate a lot of coverage in news sources. This is the case here. feminist 12:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per NOTNEWS and NOTCASESTUDY, which also means not magazine. The arguments above about 'significance' are silly from an encyclopedic treatment standpoint, and the arguments that it is all about something else or broader, are plainly against keeping a standalone article. We do not keep or do magazine articles about some 'cause celeb' among some chattering class of the day. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) And now, below too on news argument, which is reason to delete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The arguments below are more of the same: 1) people do routinely get fired for writing things, especially at work; 2) there is nothing new about any of these arguments in society, they have been made over-and-over sometimes halfway decently sometimes not; 3) sure Google is large across the world, so its internal issue du jour is covered across the world, with all kinds of people weighing in, that's what routine is - and again the arguments are this thing is about somethings larger, which means it is not stand-alone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant news story covered by a great variety of legit sources and will continue to receive coverage as the fallout continues. siarach (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sounds like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART, coverage by RS does not make it notable. Also the chances of WP:LASTING looks fairly slim with coverage falling off quickly, even at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important topic, a developing current event. Datagod (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge This is not a noteworthy event for a standalone article. The arguments above that dramatically insist on the manifesto's importance appear to be from people who are disgruntled that the guy got fired. Wikipedia should not be in the habit of making martyr articles for every edgy contrarian that gets fired from his job. 172.56.7.160 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important development in censorship in the United States.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would have been better to wait and see how this developing story develops before bringing it to Afd but as we're faced with what is basically a binary choice here, I'd say keep. The Google memo and the company's reaction and the broader debate over both memo and corporate reaction is proving to be notable. And a well-balanced, neutral article will summarize how there has been a backlash both against sentiments in the memo and the company's (over?)reaction to same. It's frankly laying bare a social divide in a number of ways, with a greater notability than any of the participants I'm sure intended. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable controversy within the topic of Women in STEM fields. Although WP:109PAPERS says "Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers", the controversy has generated enough coverage to warrant an article distinct from the article Women in STEM fields. Google is a major international corporation, so its response to the controversy is notable because it sets the bar for other organizations. I think citing WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion is wrong. WP:NOTNEWS is for routing news stories, and this story is not routine. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now – incident seems to have a reasonable chance of acquiring long-term notability. Smyth (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - should not stand alone as its own article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT; not even sure it will be noteworthy enough in the longer run to have more than a brief mention in a parent article. Minor4th 16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The story is receiving heavy media attention, the scope of which goes well beyond Google. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no merge and rename to something more specific. This has become a lightning rod for a broader discussion about both (1) gender discrimination (against both males and females) and (2) free speech (specifically, do employees have the right to express views different from others, even internally). The number of citations of this is growing rapidly, and it's likely that this will continue to be cited for many years to come (making it very Encyclopedia-worthy). It also needs to be its own article (not merged), because there are multiple issues here, making it inappropriate to move into one place. I can imagine it being cited in Women in computing, or Google, or Censorship in the United States, and probably other places as well. The Unabomber manifesto was clearly tied to the Unabomber, so merging made sense there, but merging does *not* make sense in this case. I *do* think that this should be renamed to the unambiguous title "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", since that is its title. Google produces a massive number of memos, so the current title is absurdly ambiguous to the point of being incorrect. Dwheeler (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mainstream media is flooding with articles about this story. Anywhere on the internet the headlines are dominated by this story, wikipedia has had pages for lot less important and lot less popular topics. I see no reason to delete.
  • Keep. The author might not be notable, but the public reaction and Google's reaction certainly are notable. Algr (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic has received wide media coverage and discussion across country. It's more significant than everyday news. Demondmd (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this might be a candidate for a SNOW close. Jdcomix (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably going to be notable enough to keep as its own page (but it suffers from all the difficulties in accurately assessing notability that come up whenever editors create a page "ripped from the headlines"). But in any case, it needs to be moved to a better pagename. There must be vast numbers of memos at Google, and this particular one is not the primary example, so it should have a more precise pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is the only famous Google memo, so I see no problem in leaving that as the title. Plus we need to keep it as simple as possible. Renaming it "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" or anything else would probably make it more difficult for readers to find. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_memo&oldid=794754524"