The result was keep. Sources proove notability (non-admin closure) —HueSatLum 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
So in your objection above you actually meant to say that the argument in question is based on a collection of policies, rather than an individual policy? This is getting into the realm of wikilawyering, as is making up distinctions between a list of patents being a "total directory" while a directory of the places and dates where one service from one company is available is somehow in scope for an encyclopedia.
If the whole reason that the article was split off in the first place was because the original article was too long rather than because this is a topic that is independently discussed in any reliable sources, it's gaming the system to split it because it was bulked up with this sort of non-narrative compiled data content and then insist that the new article must remain as at least a stub. If IP editors are adding directory content to an article then you should remove the content or move it to an appropriate project, not use it as an excuse to split off a new article with a couple of exactly duplicated paragraphs and trivia about dead bodies being caught in Street View images. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 07:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we aren't actually talking about a narrative discussion or prose about the topic here, we're talking about compiled data tables. I am still curious what the "Keep" !voters would say about pages and pages of tables of locations and dates concerning the availability of Coca-Cola, especially considering that "Coca-Cola in Latin America" gets dozens of Google News and Google Books hits, where "Google Street View in Latin America" gets none. There's probably enough information in collectibles and antiques guides to break it down by size and type of bottle and can and to have articles and tables for other types of collectibles and Coke products, especially if we cut and pasted some duplicate paragraphs from the main article in as well, but doing so would not seem to be exercising editorial judgment. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely.
Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.