Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google rule

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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google rule

This should not exist in the main namespace, and there is already detailed information on this at WP:GOOG. Originally proded by User:Icarus3 and deproded by the page's creator without explanation. Delete. --Hetar 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, per nom —This unsigned comment was added by Soumyasch (talk • contribs) .
• Sorry, this is still a work in progress. More time please. --Frankencow
• Merge, into WP:GOOG or redirect. 128.143.63.86 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merging this article would destroy the simplicity of the Google Rule thereby irradicating the point of the Google Rule —This unsigned comment was added by Frankencow (talk)

• I think there's valid material in this article. I just don't think it belongs under the heading Google rule. Maybe in a critique section of Wikipedia:Search engine test? 128.143.63.86 06:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • As stated this subject goes beyond the scope of simply Wikipedia's policies. Out of respect for Wikipedia they are mentioned first as the primary example in the article.
• Redirect to WP:GOOG T K E 05:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Wikipedia:Search engine test, ie. WP:GOOG (otherwise uyou have a double redirect!). -- RHaworth 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Good point, I didn't notice that. T K E 05:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. A redirect from article space into Wikipedia space strikes me as a bad idea; isn't it against some policy or other? --Trovatore 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Good point, I wonder if it is. 128.143.63.86 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think its against a rule or guideline; it takes up a few bytes on the server because of the format. It'd be a quick link. T K E
  • It has nothing to do with any drain on the server. Articles are articles; Wikipedia space is Wikipedia space. With rare exceptions they're supposed to be separate, the first being directed to users and the second to editors. Also see Hetar's comment below. --Trovatore 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a redirect, reason #5 to delete a redirect, listed at WP:R states that, "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." --Hetar 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirects generally aren't supposed to cross namespaces. --Icarus 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this is WP:OR and essentially a WP:POV and non-verifiable attack on Wikipedia. How does the author know what "most Wikipedians" think? There is no way of knowing this, so the premise of the article is irretrievably unencyclopedic. (disclosure: I originally speedy tagged this as {{nonsense}}) Gwernol 05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not an attack on Wikipedia. I was merely pointing out the irony of deleting the article. I have corrected myself to "many" although since this is Wikipedia's policy it would be logical to assume that most Wikipedians follow the rules. Just because you do not like what is being said does not constitute it to be nonsense or not notable. I believe this is a growing concern in our culture and rather than pressing for deletion everyone should be contributing more research. --Frankencow

Coment Where is this Wikiepdia's policy? Here's the only mention of Google on the notability page: "There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)." which says the exact opposite of your article. Also note that notability is a guideline not a policy of Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-referential. No need for a cross-namespace redirect here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • If that is such a big problem then simply delete the self-referential part.

Speedy Delete Has nothing to do with wiki. Not really an encyclopedia entry, if people really want to keep it, it chould be in the wikipedia name space. Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 07:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • If it has nothing to do with wiki why put it in the wikipedia name space? This is the beginning of an entry that will be expanded later and could benefit greatly from the help of others who are researching this growing trend.
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 16:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not to be ironic or anything, but "google rule" doesnt seem to bring up anything relevant on Google [1]. Also, this article fails verifiability for the idea that this has phrase has expanded past the scope of wikipedia. In addition, I think the author is combining a loose set of ideas that they invented a phrase for. Perhaps parts can be merged into Google and others into the aforementioned WP page. ---J.Smith 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless as a redirect (policy notwithstanding). I suppose someone should note that it's called the "Google Test", not the "Google Rule". Fagstein 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wrong space ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:00, 7 April 2006 (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.