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. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Feedback[edit]

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

Contested prod. My reasoning remains unchanged: Every major corporation (and most non-major ones) have customer feedback forms on their website and at their stores. Google's feedback form is competely generic and is no more notable than the stack of "we value your comments" cards at the end of a Burger King counter. Mogism (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raname it as discussed in Talk:Google Feedback#Raname. You're even the same person the the person who proposed it for deletion. If you're going to nominate an article for deletion, don't waste other people's time proposing it's deletion first. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating it at AFD is what is supposed to happen if someone contests a proposed deletion. What would you suggest I do instead? Per my comments on the prod and above, there is no way this totally unreferenced piece of original research is appropriate content for Wikipedia. I don't see how you plan to write a broader Internet feedback article as you propose on the talkpage, even if you could persuade people that it's worthwhile, since the sources just don't exist - the topic is mundane and uncontroversial enough that nobody is ever going to publish papers on it, and in the absence of those papers it's not something Wikipedia can or should be covering. Mogism (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, I'm allowed to create an article when I can't find any sources if I assume other people are going to find them later. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what Mogism wrote, the purpose of proposed deletion is to avoid taking up people's time with a full deletion discussion like this one if one is sufficiently confident that the justification for deleting the article is sound and thinks the request might not be contested. If that doesn't go as planned, though (because someone removes the PROD tag), then a discussion is the natural next step if there hasn't also been an improvement in the situation that motivated the PROD placement.

You're correct that having no references (other than for a biography of a living person) is permitted. But sources that confirm notability have to exist. People who can't find them and doubt that they exist can then reasonably confer to discuss the article's deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be moved to Wikisource since so few sources already exist about feedback. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No go. Things on Wikisource have to be verifiable, and Wikipedia does not count as a verifiable source. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you missed my point. Wikisource is not Wikipedia, it's its sister project. Calling Wikisource part of Wikipedia is like calling Wikipedia part of Wikimedia commons. Maybe you thought the Word Wikipedia meant Wikimedia foundation which has all 12 sister projects one of which is Wikipedia. There's a link to the Wikimedia foundation at the bottom of all Wikipedia pages. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I really meant to suggest was that Wikisource be used for original research of Google Feedback and Bing feedback, not source the article Google Feedback. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited Wikimedia projects for over 5 years, I know that there are different wikis under the Wikimedia "umbrella". What I meant is that we cannot put the content of Google Feedback from here on Wikisource because it does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikisource. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources, unlikely to ever be sources. Wikipedia is NOT everything and mere existence is not sufficient rationale for a stand alone article. With no sourced content, there is no value in renaming or re-purposing for anything else vaguely related that might of itself be notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To repeat my comment on the article's talk page from when I posted a notability tag there, "The article doesn't present any information about the feedback feature on Google websites that materially sets it apart from feedback links on many other websites so as to indicate why an article just for Google's feedback is warranted. References to sources dealing specifically and amply with Google's feedback mechanism are needed to validate this focus on the subject." (Blackbombchu has suggested having an article with the title "Internet feedback" instead, but that's a separate matter. I suspect that there hasn't been any general coverage of the feedback feature on various websites either.) I am finding pages where it's discussed: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. No reliable sources, but definitely signs of Google Feedback being a topic of discussion, as far as that goes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. Nothing I can find treats the topic as the subject of an article/feature besides tutorials or unreliable sources. The topic itself is trivial, every big service has customer support, and unless there are sources for this one, I don't see why it should be an exception. (Disclaimer: saw the link to this from a proposal by the author to change inclusion/verifiability standards on VP.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no evidence that this is a notable topic. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not notable, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good lord. Not notable, not important, not sourced, not informative, not anything. No reason for this to be on Wikipedia, no reason for you to defend it. --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This feature of the Google family of websites is not notable. There's no independent coverage in reliable sources. Lagrange 613 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing special about Google's feedback form(s) that has given rise to any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find none in my searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.